1 Tim 3:2

[akasseb]

I am having difficulty reconciling 1 Tim 3:2 and current Church discipline. The verse in question reads: “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher” (RSV). Obviously, the problem lies with the phrase “the husband of one wife.” Clearly, this shows that bishops were allowed to be married in the Apostolic age. Yet, Bishops are not allowed to be married now. How does one reconcile these two facts?

Sorry if this question has been addressed previously.

 

[fermat]

In the early church the discipline of celibacy had not yet been instituted. Newadvent.org will have a good answer, but I can’t seem to pull the site up now.

This passage means that if a bishop is married and his wife dies, he is not to remarry. It does not mean that they have to married.

 

[chris62]

Several of the early popes, I believe, were married.

I think Peter was too, if some one could clarify.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Some Popes even had kids. But the church determined that priests/bishops should remain celibate to dedicate their lives for the gospel entirely just as Jesus did. This at least in the latin rite, the eastern one works a bit different.

 

[Little_One0307]

The discipline of clerical celibacy was highly revered in the early Church and was required by the eleventh century for all men ordained in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Vatican II reaffirmed the validity of this in 1965 [Presbyterorum Ordinis, 16]. This also reaffirmed the validity of the Eastern Church practices as well.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

#1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

and

#1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. 73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

and from Presbyterorum Ordinis

#16. (Celibacy is to be embraced and esteemed as a gift). Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, commended by Christ the Lord(33) and through the course of time as well as in our own days freely accepted and observed in a praiseworthy manner by many of the faithful, is held by the Church to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life. It is at the same time a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world.(34) Indeed, it is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church(35) and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches. where, besides those who with all the bishops, by a gift of grace, choose to observe celibacy, there are also married priests of highest merit. This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.(36)

Indeed, celibacy has a many-faceted suitability for the priesthood. For the whole priestly mission is dedicated to the service of a new humanity which Christ, the victor over death, has aroused through his Spirit in the world and which has its origin "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God (Jn 1:13). Through virginity, then, or celibacy observed for the Kingdom of Heaven,(37) priests are consecrated to Christ by a new and exceptional reason. They adhere to him more easily with an undivided heart,(38) they dedicate themselves more freely in him and through him to the service of God and men, and they more expeditiously minister to his Kingdom and the work of heavenly regeneration, and thus they are apt to accept, in a broad sense, paternity in Christ. In this way they profess themselves before men as willing to be dedicated to the office committed to them-namely, to commit themselves faithfully to one man and to show themselves as a chaste virgin for Christ(39) and thus to evoke the mysterious marriage established by Christ, and fully to be manifested in the future, in which the Church has Christ as her only Spouse.(40) They give, moreover, a living sign of the world to come, by a faith and charity already made present, in which the children of the resurrection neither marry nor take wives.(41)

For these reasons, based on the mystery of Christ and his mission, celibacy, which first was recommended to priests, later in the Latin Church was imposed upon all who were to be promoted to sacred orders. This legislation, pertaining to those who are destined for the priesthood, this holy synod again approves and confirms, fully trusting this gift of the Spirit so fitting for the priesthood of the New Testament, freely given by the Father, provided that those who participate in the priesthood of Christ through the sacrament of Orders-and also the whole Church-humbly and fervently pray for it. This sacred synod also exhorts all priests who, in following the example of Christ, freely receive sacred celibacy as a grace of God, that they magnanimously and wholeheartedly adhere to it, and that persevering faithfully in it, they may acknowledge this outstanding gift of the Father which is so openly praised and extolled by the Lord.(42) Let them keep before their eyes the great mysteries signified by it and fulfilled in it. Insofar as perfect continence is thought by many men to be impossible in our times, to that extent priests should all the more humbly and steadfastly pray with the Church for that grace of fidelity, which is never denied those who seek it, and use all the supernatural and natural aids available. They should especially seek, lest they omit them, the ascetical norms which have been proved by the experience of the Church and which are scarcely less necessary in the contemporary world. This holy synod asks not only priests but all the faithful that they might receive this precious gift of priestly celibacy in their hearts and ask of God that he will always bestow this gift upon his Church.

God bless.

 

[akasseb]

But to the non-Catholic, the juxtaposition of these two competing positions presents an almost insurmountable obstacle. Frankly, it doesn’t really prove the Catholic position to state that the verse does not require that bishops be married. In the critic’s eyes, it seems clear that an Apostle allowed marriage for bishops in the Apostolic age, yet this teaching was changed later in history by the Church. Frankly, I haven’t found the answers provided thus far to be very convincing. Was this allowance for marriage a special priviliege for first generation Christians? For example, in the New Testament adult baptism was necessary because the sacrament had just recently been initiated by Christ.

 

[Ignatius]

I am having difficulty reconciling 1 Tim 3:2 and current Church discipline. The verse in question reads: “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher” (RSV). Obviously, the problem lies with the phrase “the husband of one wife.” Clearly, this shows that bishops were allowed to be married in the Apostolic age. Yet, Bishops are not allowed to be married now. How does one reconcile these two facts?

Sorry if this question has been addressed previously.

It has been addressed many times. You can go to the Search shortcut at the top of the page and search on whatever subject you like.

However, to answer your question, At the time, polygamy was common. Paul is addressing the need to have bishops who are not involved in multiple marriages.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

But to the non-Catholic, the juxtaposition of these two competing positions presents an almost insurmountable obstacle. Frankly, it doesn’t really prove the Catholic position to state that the verse does not require that bishops be married. In the critic’s eyes, it seems clear that an Apostle allowed marriage for bishops in the Apostolic age, yet this teaching was changed later in history by the Church. Frankly, I haven’t found the answers provided thus far to be very convincing. Was this allowance for marriage a special priviliege for first generation Christians? For example, in the New Testament adult baptism was necessary because the sacrament had just recently been initiated by Christ.

Actually I think the non-Catholics you speak of have a few problems of their own with the biblical evidence on this subject.
(1) Jesus in Mt 19:11-12 recommends celibacy as a treasured spiritual gift.
(2) Paul himself in 1 Cor 7 (despite 1 Tim 3:2) clearly recommends celibacy enthusiastically as he himself is living.
(3) We know from Acts 15:28 that a decision of the Apostles in council is made with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
(4) Fellow workers and successors were appointed by the apostles over the flock [Acts 14:23; 20:28; 2 Tim 4:2-5; Titus 1:5-9; 2:1,15; cf. 1 Tim 5:19-21, 22]. In Col 1:7 we learn that Epaphras, a fellow worker with Paul, founded the Church at Colossae.

Now if they claim that Paul’s advice in 1 Tim 3:2 is considered valid down through time including what it implies, it must be so with (1) - (4) as well.

So if (1) and (2) are prized and practiced as a spiritual gift individually by priests and bishops in increasing numbers and councils of bishops as per (3) and (4) begin to mandate it and no one is forced into a ministry which is also a spiritual gift, where is the problem? 1 Tim 3:2 doesn’t say bishops had to be married.

 

[TimothyH]

But to the non-Catholic, the juxtaposition of these two competing positions presents an almost insurmountable obstacle. Frankly, it doesn’t really prove the Catholic position to state that the verse does not require that bishops be married. In the critic’s eyes, it seems clear that an Apostle allowed marriage for bishops in the Apostolic age, yet this teaching was changed later in history by the Church. Frankly, I haven’t found the answers provided thus far to be very convincing. Was this allowance for marriage a special priviliege for first generation Christians? For example, in the New Testament adult baptism was necessary because the sacrament had just recently been initiated by Christ.

I was going to say something similar to Fr of Jazz.

Any non-Catholic who brings up 1 Timothty 3:2 as an argument against preistly celibacy has to take into account Christ’s own recommendation in favor of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom saying “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Matthew 19:12)

Note that Christ’s comments were a recommendation to celibacy, not a command. The Church merely acts on 'Christ’s own recommendation. Priestly celibacy is not a matter of salvation. It is a disciplinary rule set forth by the Church according to Christ’s own recommendation. The church could turn around tomorrow and allow priests to marry and that is an internal matter for the Church.

Baptism on the other hand, is a matter of salvation.

-Tim-

 

[akasseb]

Actually I think the non-Catholics you speak of have a few problems of their own with the biblical evidence on this subject.
(1) Jesus in Mt 19:11-12 recommends celibacy as a treasured spiritual gift.
(2) Paul himself in 1 Cor 7 (despite 1 Tim 3:2) clearly recommends celibacy enthusiastically as he himself is living.
(3) We know from Acts 15:28 that a decision of the Apostles in council is made with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
(4) Fellow workers and successors were appointed by the apostles over the flock [Acts 14:23; 20:28; 2 Tim 4:2-5; Titus 1:5-9; 2:1,15; cf. 1 Tim 5:19-21, 22]. In Col 1:7 we learn that Epaphras, a fellow worker with Paul, founded the Church at Colossae.

Now if they claim that Paul’s advice in 1 Tim 3:2 is considered valid down through time including what it implies, it must be so with (1) - (4) as well.

So if (1) and (2) are prized and practiced as a spiritual gift individually by priests and bishops in increasing numbers and councils of bishops as per (3) and (4) begin to mandate it and no one is forced into a ministry which is also a spiritual gift, where is the problem? 1 Tim 3:2 doesn’t say bishops had to be married.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. But I am still not satisfied (Sorry to be pushy, but I hear this objection all the time). Here is what I am ceding as obvious from Scripture: (1) That 1 Tim 3:2 does not require that bishops be married, and (2) that celibacy was both praised and recommended by both Jesus and Paul, who were both unmarried. But these points do not address the fact that bishops COULD be married then, and CANNOT be married now. Why would Paul allow bishops to be married? And why did the Church reverse this discipline? In other words, what facts on the ground caused this change in discipline? Exposing the problems of non-Catholics is important for sure, but it doesn’t prove that the Church has the truth.

Thanks again!

 

[Corki]

But to the non-Catholic, the juxtaposition of these two competing positions presents an almost insurmountable obstacle. Frankly, it doesn’t really prove the Catholic position to state that the verse does not require that bishops be married. In the critic’s eyes, it seems clear that an Apostle allowed marriage for bishops in the Apostolic age, yet this teaching was changed later in history by the Church. Frankly, I haven’t found the answers provided thus far to be very convincing. Was this allowance for marriage a special priviliege for first generation Christians? For example, in the New Testament adult baptism was necessary because the sacrament had just recently been initiated by Christ.

There is nothing in that verse or any other that indicates that Bishops were allowed to marry - only that married men could become Bishops. Although the current discipline is for a celibate clergy, it is a discipline and can be changed. The Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men and there is a small number of married men in the ranks of Roman Catholic clergy as well.

It is a matter of discipline and prudential judgement regarding how the clergy best serve the Church. It is not a theological point. Disciplinary rules should not trouble non-Catholics at all.

 

[akasseb]

There is nothing in that verse or any other that indicates that Bishops were allowed to marry - only that married men could become Bishops. Although the current discipline is for a celibate clergy, it is a discipline and can be changed. The Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men and there is a small number of married men in the ranks of Roman Catholic clergy as well.

It is a matter of discipline and prudential judgement regarding how the clergy best serve the Church. It is not a theological point. Disciplinary rules should not trouble non-Catholics at all.

Thank you for your response. You bring up an important point, which I alluded to imperfectly in a previous post on this thread. Was it the case that bishops were sometimes married before ordination, but never married after ordination (i.e. order of operations is essential)? For instance, if a bishop’s wife died, was he required to remain celibate for the rest of his life? Did they practice continence after ordination? If so, please provide a source (if you have one handy) as these seem to be important points. I understand if you don’t have the answers to these questions. But these are the questions going through my head.

A side question: what would have been the state of marriage in general in the Apostolic age? In other words, was Paul’s teaching that a bishop could be married to only one wife a great leap forward (i.e. divorce and polygamy being normal practices).

 

[Corki]

Thank you for your response. You bring up an important point, which I alluded to imperfectly in a previous post on this thread. Was it the case that bishops were sometimes married before ordination, but never married after ordination (i.e. order of operations is essential)? For instance, if a bishop’s wife died, was he required to remain celibate for the rest of his life? Did they practice continence after ordination? If so, please provide a source (if you have one handy) as these seem to be important points. I understand if you don’t have the answers to these questions. But these are the questions going through my head.

Scripture is silent on the issue but the Early Church Fathers as early as the second century were attributing the celibacy of bishops to apostolic origin. There was a prohibition on Bishops begetting children which would seem to indicate that, if married, they were expected to live continently after becoming Bishops. I will try to find the exact quotes later.

A side question: what would have been the state of marriage in general in the Apostolic age? In other words, was Paul’s teaching that a bishop could be married to only one wife a great leap forward (i.e. divorce and polygamy being normal practices)

The Jews were monogamous and only rarely allowed divorce. But once Chrisianity started spreading to the Gentiles, the “state of marriage” varied greatly.

 

[jcrichton]

I am having difficulty reconciling 1 Tim 3:2 and current Church discipline. The verse in question reads: “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher” (RSV). Obviously, the problem lies with the phrase “the husband of one wife.” Clearly, this shows that bishops were allowed to be married in the Apostolic age. Yet, Bishops are not allowed to be married now. How does one reconcile these two facts?

Sorry if this question has been addressed previously.

…you seem to imply that the Church is not organic… meaning that the Church must stay in the form in which she gain inception… let’s see: her original members were Jews–nope, Christ sent the Apostles to the whole world; the original members gathered in synagogues–nope, got persecuted out of them and established makeshift communities everywhere but in synagogues; the original explosion at Pentecost left a whole bunch of powerful ministers that performed fantastic miracles–nope, if you mess with serpents, for the most part, you will need the emergency poison control unit; the original members went by a generic name: the Way–nope, though we acknowledge that Jesus is the Way, we go by another one of His Names: Christ; the original members gathered their possessions brought them to the Apostles and they in turn distributed according to the various needs of the community (leveled economy)–nope, not us–today there are those who claim to be Christians and are living in luxury (many times at the expense of the least wealthy)… then there are the development of Doctrine: original Church… no Scriptures at all–you see, only very specific Jewish religious had access to the Sacred Writings and since Jesus did not commit to a coup nor hire scribes to take down His Teachings the Church was Founded in absence of a single Sacred Scroll; of course, there would be a compilation of these Writings made through the Holy Spirit’s direction (Acts tells us that many priests converted to Christianity during the Church’s early development–so it is quite probable that some of these would gain access to the Sacred Writings and copy them for the Church; also, we know, from Scriptures, that a few of the wealthy members of the Jewish society became disciples of Christ… this opens up the possibility of hiring scribes and others to duplicate Sacred Writings), and, also through direction of the Holy Spirit, it was the early Church that produced the various Writings of the New Testament Books.

As for the practice of celibacy, did you know that St. Paul, among others in Scriptures, was a proponent of celibacy? I do not know the origins of this particular discipline, but it is likely that the Church witnessed many Bishops and Priests that abused the Marital Sacrament and concluded that, as the tides with other worldly attachments (wealth, political power, military power, etc.), it would be more beneficial for her members to live a chaste and celibate life.

Here’s my question: why is it that those who have no problem with St. Paul’s celibacy, and Jesus’ Himself for that matter, continue to gripe about a discipline the Church has adopted in order to better serve Christ and the world?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. But I am still not satisfied (Sorry to be pushy, but I hear this objection all the time). Here is what I am ceding as obvious from Scripture: (1) That 1 Tim 3:2 does not require that bishops be married, and (2) that celibacy was both praised and recommended by both Jesus and Paul, who were both unmarried. But these points do not address the fact that bishops COULD be married then, and CANNOT be married now. Why would Paul allow bishops to be married? And why did the Church reverse this discipline? In other words, what facts on the ground caused this change in discipline? Exposing the problems of non-Catholics is important for sure, but it doesn’t prove that the Church has the truth.

Thanks again!

NP, it’s a fun discussion.

In some ways I’m operating in the dark here. I’m not sure what specific problem the non-Catholics have. Can you sketch it out for me in detail: what problem exactly does the “fact” present for the CC?

OK, so going in the dark, you’re right, (1) and (2) alone don’t address the fact: (1) – (4) in my initial response does.

Put it this way, Paul also allows slavery (Eph 6:5-9; Col 4:1; plus—and I love the irony–in the same letter as your passage, 1 Tim 6:1-3). So who are we now to declare that it is immoral?
Paul says that a woman should never speak in church (1 Cor 14:34-35). Who are we now to allow them?
Paul says a woman should never teach or have authority over a man (again in 1 Tim 2:12). Who are we to allow them now?
Paul says that women must cover their heads in church (1 Cor 11:13-15). Who are we to say now they do not have to?

Is Christianity bound to doing literal NT church reenactments?

Celibacy is disciplinary, not doctrinal. And if over time the spiritual benefits for clergy of a revered NT teaching and practice are seen, the successors of the apostles have the authority (Mt 16:19; 18:18; Acts 15:28) to require it. They are not contradicting a teaching of Paul. We conclude that since Paul made a somewhat ambiguous statement** about marriage and bishops, he permitted marriage. We know for sure he did not say “you must permit marriage for bishops.”

You’ll have to sketch out in detail where the problem with this is, though, so I can see it.

**1 Tm 3:2 can be translated: married once, and if widowed, did not remarry; monogamous rather than polygamous; faithful to a wife and without a mistress.