Where did the concept of 'Celibacy' come from?

[civilwarbuff]

Thanks for the answer....

 

[Erose]

This probably not the appropriate forum but since you did bring it up..... has not the RCC historically said that anyone outside the church (RCC) cannot be saved?

For sake of not derailing this thread, which is already derailed, when did I bring it up?

 

[Erose]

I am not sure that the Roman Catholic church sees the Coptic Church as the legitimate See, since it accepts, as far as I know, the Canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Coptic Church rejects this Council. The current Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria formed from the remnant that accepted the Council. Is this not your understanding?

The Catholic Church regards the Coptic Church as much of a legitimate see as Constantiople. Yes the Coptic Church rejects all councils after the schism; but so does the Eastern Orthodox Churches after their schism. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and the Coptic Catholic Church are not the original Patriarchate, and if/when proper communion is brought about, those two Patriarchates will eventually fade away, probably after the deaths of the existing Patriarchs when the union occurs. I do know that the existing Coptic Catholic Patriarch has stated if communion is established in his lifetime, he will happily step down.

 

[civilwarbuff]

This probably not the appropriate forum but since you did bring it up..... has not the RCC historically said that anyone outside the church (RCC) cannot be saved?

For sake of not derailing this thread, which is already derailed, when did I bring it up?

No one has claimed that religion and salvation are synonyms.

No one on this thread has made this claim (to the best of my knowledge) however doesn't RCC historically claim anyone outside of the Church cannot be saved? Salvation and religion would be synonyms in that case...the key word here is historically...

 

[NonTheologian]

The Catholic Church regards the Coptic Church as much of a legitimate see as Constantiople. Yes the Coptic Church rejects all councils after the schism; but so does the Eastern Orthodox Churches after their schism. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and the Coptic Catholic Church are not the original Patriarchate, and if/when proper communion is brought about, those two Patriarchates will eventually fade away, probably after the deaths of the existing Patriarchs when the union occurs. I do know that the existing Coptic Catholic Patriarch has stated if communion is established in his lifetime, he will happily step down.

It sounds like you might be confusing the Coptic See of Alexandria, which branched away from Eastern Orthodoxy with the Council of Chalcedon in 451, with the Coptic Catholic Church, which was established as a Patriarchate under the Pope of Rome in 1824. The Roman Catholic Church is in communion with the Coptic Catholic Church, but not the Coptic See of Alexandria.

 

[now faith]

And? Of course there is a difference because the two terms speaks of something that isn't the other. No one has claimed that religion and salvation are synonyms.

I take it you have read the NT, since the writings of the NT refer to the Body of believers as the Church. So in this case Church and Body of Believers are the same thing.

Actually the Church does offer salvation, because Christ has made her the ordinary means by which salvation is given. Through the preaching of the Word and Baptism. Mark 16:16 is very explicit in pointing this out.

Got this one right.

No one is implying that if you are referring to God's Word as Jesus Christ.

Thanks for Grand gift of sage wisdom,but no thanks,I must disagree on your exegesis of Mark 16

Mark: 16. 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

The question was posed what came first the Church or the Bible?

Apostolic succession by definition brings salvation full circle dependent on the Roman Church, thus the Body would be considered the Church.

My disagreement with your exegesis, is you have created a paradox of 2 doctrines,unless your faith is non Cathloic

 

[NonTheologian]

Apostolic succession by definition brings salvation full circle dependent on the Roman Church

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church that can claim Apostolic succession.

I wasn't clear what you were arguing. Were you arguing that the Bible came before the Church?

 

[now faith]

I was not arguing or trying to quarrel with any one.

I simply was attempting to answer a question.

The question is open ended depending upon your particular denomination, if I were Cathloic I would answer the Church.

My reasoning for this is the Vulgate was translated after the formation of the Church of Rome.

But I am not Cathloic so the discussion gets blurred do to interpretation.

 

[Erose]

No one on this thread has made this claim (to the best of my knowledge) however doesn't RCC historically claim anyone outside of the Church cannot be saved? Salvation and religion would be synonyms in that case...the key word here is historically...

A couple of things here. We have to look at definitions here. One salvation is what? Being saved right? Depending upon the religion what one is being saved from can be varied right? Religion can then be defined as the belief system built around some higher power, who/that will save, if one does "X", right? So salvation cannot be the same as religion. Two differing things.

Concerning your question. The answer is yes, one cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church. This is still taught as the truth. There have been quite a few threads that I have participated in that discusses the full meaning of this, and how the Church can claim this, while accepting that people who do not consider themselves members of the Catholic Church can still be saved. It is a relatively complex discussion based upon the moral theological concept of ignorance, that should not be discussed here.

 

[Erose]

It sounds like you might be confusing the Coptic See of Alexandria, which branched away from Eastern Orthodoxy with the Council of Chalcedon in 451, with the Coptic Catholic Church, which was established as a Patriarchate under the Pope of Rome in 1824. The Roman Catholic Church is in communion with the Coptic Catholic Church, but not the Coptic See of Alexandria.

Actually I'm not confusing anything. I did not imply such. The true patriarchate of Alexandria historically is the Oriental Orthodox Coptic Patriarchate, not the Greek Patriarchate or the Coptic Catholic Church. Only the Oriental Patriarch can lay claim to Apostolic Succession through St. Mark. That is a historical fact.

 

[Erose]

Thanks for Grand gift of sage wisdom,but no thanks,I must disagree on your exegesis of Mark 16

Mark: 16. 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Thanks for posting the passage that proves my point.

The question was posed what came first the Church or the Bible?

One that you didn't address.

Apostolic succession by definition brings salvation full circle dependent on the Roman Church, thus the Body would be considered the Church.

The Body is the Church. I'm not sure why this is a difficult point to understand. And yes Apostolic Succession is important when it comes to the Church. And no the Catholic Church isn't the only Church with valid bishops with Apostolic succession. Both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches can also make a claim for legitimate Apostolic Succession, and valid Sacraments. It is these sacraments given to the Church by her Lord, through which the ordinary means of salvation is given to man.

My disagreement with your exegesis, is you have created a paradox of 2 doctrines,unless your faith is non Cathloic

You will have to do a better job of explaining a paradox.

 

[Erose]

I was not arguing or trying to quarrel with any one.

I simply was attempting to answer a question.

The question is open ended depending upon your particular denomination, if I were Cathloic I would answer the Church.

My reasoning for this is the Vulgate was translated after the formation of the Church of Rome.

But I am not Cathloic so the discussion gets blurred do to interpretation.

Your right the Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome in the 4th and 5th centuries. My question to you, why does that matter? The Vulgate wasn't the first translation used in the liturgy in the West.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Concerning your question. The answer is yes, one cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church. This is still taught as the truth. There have been quite a few threads that I have participated in that discusses the full meaning of this, and how the Church can claim this, while accepting that people who do not consider themselves members of the Catholic Church can still be saved. It is a relatively complex discussion based upon the moral theological concept of ignorance, that should not be discussed here.

That is all I needed to know, thank you. I get some real wish washy answers to that question but I appreciate the honesty of yours.

 

[now faith]

Your right the Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome in the 4th and 5th centuries. My question to you, why does that matter? The Vulgate wasn't the first translation used in the liturgy in the West.

This is gone way off topic.

Here is the answer to original thread question


325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.
352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women.
385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.

Source : Future Church

 

[now faith]

Thanks for posting the passage that proves my point.

One that you didn't address.

The Body is the Church. I'm not sure why this is a difficult point to understand. And yes Apostolic Succession is important when it comes to the Church. And no the Catholic Church isn't the only Church with valid bishops with Apostolic succession. Both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches can also make a claim for legitimate Apostolic Succession, and valid Sacraments. It is these sacraments given to the Church by her Lord, through which the ordinary means of salvation is given to man.


You will have to do a better job of explaining a paradox.

Ok this is becoming redundant, you know Cathloic dogma better than I do.
As well yout know the teaching on salvation

Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

I hope this helps you understand my post ,if not then forget it it's getting boring.

 

[NonTheologian]

No one on this thread has made this claim (to the best of my knowledge) however doesn't RCC historically claim anyone outside of the Church cannot be saved? Salvation and religion would be synonyms in that case...the key word here is historically...

Concerning your question. The answer is yes, one cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church. This is still taught as the truth. There have been quite a few threads that I have participated in that discusses the full meaning of this, and how the Church can claim this, while accepting that people who do not consider themselves members of the Catholic Church can still be saved. It is a relatively complex discussion based upon the moral theological concept of ignorance, that should not be discussed here.

The Eastern Orthodox Church considers anyone outside the (Orthodox) Church as being in heresy but, perhaps ironically to some, does not make the claim that one can only be saved through the Orthodox Church. There is a saying that many Orthodox when they die will be surprised at how many non-Orthodox are in heaven and how many Orthodox are in hell.

 

[Thursday]

Was it the Roman Priests that brought 'celibacy'? Or was it Christ Himself?

Both Paul and Jesus state that celibacy is the preferred state for a leader in the Church, but not an absolute requirement.

This is the same position as the Catholic Church.

 

[NonTheologian]

I was not arguing or trying to quarrel with any one.

I simply was attempting to answer a question.

The question is open ended depending upon your particular denomination, if I were Cathloic I would answer the Church.

My reasoning for this is the Vulgate was translated after the formation of the Church of Rome.

But I am not Cathloic so the discussion gets blurred do to interpretation.

Sorry, I meant "argue" in the academic sense. I wasn't suggesting that you were being offensive.

One would have to say that the New Testament came after (and actually out of) the Church, would they not?

With regard to the Latin Vulgate, there were several Latin versions - sometimes called Old Latin - that preceded the the Vulgate.

 

[Erose]

That is all I needed to know, thank you. I get some real wish washy answers to that question but I appreciate the honesty of yours.

In all honesty that topic is not an easy one to flesh out, so I'm not surprised you would get wishy washy answers.

To effectively understand it requires a good understanding of how the Catholic Church understands what Church is, and moral theology.

 

[Erose]

.