1 Timothy 3:1-5

[Genesius]

1st Timothy 3:1-5

1 This saying is trustworthy: 2 whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
2
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

From: usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm

I totally respect the decision of the Church concerning the tradition of a life of celibacy for bishops/priests. However, how does the Church reconcile that tradition in relation to the above passage? Particularly, in vs. 2, “…married only once…”, especially vs. 4-5?

I’m sure this question has been posed and answered a million times, and I have read works such as papal encyclicals concerning celibacy and I respect them. I live a celibate life myself. However, I have just not run across this passage in particular in them. I also know that elsewhere St.Paul praises both those who marry and those who live a celibate life for the purpose of serving God more fully.

Having said all that, I realize as Catholics we don’t just consider the Bible’s authority by itself, but in context with the teaching & interpretation of the Magisterium.

I would also be interested to know when the celibate tradition began, since the above passage seems to indicate it had not yet begun at the time of the writing of 1st Timothy.

 

[phoage]

This link is to a Wikipeadia article. Go to the Section labled Historical origins. It also has a link to a referenced Vatican article.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church

 

[Church_Militant]

Where exactly do you get that this comes from Sacred Tradition? Take a look at this article from my blog.
Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

 

[Genesius]

Where exactly do you get that this comes from Sacred Tradition? Take a look at this article from my blog.
Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

I read your blog. The information you present is very well presented, even if it does lack a bit of charity, but seemingly with no lack of cynicism/sarcasm. If you truly hope non-Catholic Christians become enlightened and come home to Rome you might consider laying off the uncharitable approach a little. Just a suggestion.

Having said all that, you asked where I got that it came from Sacred Tradition. Did you not read my last statement. I will repeat it for you. “I would also be interested to know when the celibate tradition began, since the above passage seems to indicate it had not yet begun at the time of the writing of 1st Timothy.” In other words, if there are obviously Bishops with children at the time of the writing in 1st Timothy, one would have to presume they were either married, or had an illicit affair which produced children. Since the latter is hardly probable, I’m sure we could agree that they are married.

Since the passage uses the term ‘must’ , which would seem to emphasize the necessity of a Bishop being married, as opposed to the other passages you cited in the blog which seem to convey more of a sense of opting either way, but not necessarily applying to Bishops specifically, it would seem that according to the Timothy passage a Bishop would be REQUIRED to be married (regardless of the reason, although the reason is very pertinent as well).

In other words, the only logical explanation is that the Church at some point had to lift this requirement, OR, the interpretation of it being a REQUIREMENT is somehow flawed (i.e. the term ‘must’ being a mistranslation, etc.). Since the Magisterium has authority to do such things, there is no problem. I’ll allow it! LOL! Isn’t that gracious of me?

 

[Todd_Easton]

The phrase “married only once” is understood to mean “if married, married only once,” that is, “if married, married only once in his lifetime,” ruling out those men who had more than one wife at one time and those men who contracted a second marriage after the end of their first marriage.

Similarly, the phrase “keeping his children under control” is understood to mean “if he has children, keeping his children under control.”

So, Paul is not disqualifying all childless, single men from being bishops but rather only some married men. Neither is he disqualifying all childless, married men but only those men with unruly children.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Having said all that, you asked where I got that it came from Sacred Tradition. Did you not read my last statement. I will repeat it for you. “I would also be interested to know when the celibate tradition began, since the above passage seems to indicate it had not yet begun at the time of the writing of 1st Timothy.” In other words, if there are obviously Bishops with children at the time of the writing in 1st Timothy, one would have to presume they were either married, or had an illicit affair which produced children. Since the latter is hardly probable, I’m sure we could agree that they are married.

Since the passage uses the term ‘must’ , which would seem to emphasize the necessity of a Bishop being married, as opposed to the other passages you cited in the blog which seem to convey more of a sense of opting either way, but not necessarily applying to Bishops specifically, it would seem that according to the Timothy passage a Bishop would be REQUIRED to be married (regardless of the reason, although the reason is very pertinent as well).

In other words, the only logical explanation is that the Church at some point had to lift this requirement, OR, the interpretation of it being a REQUIREMENT is somehow flawed (i.e. the term ‘must’ being a mistranslation, etc.). Since the Magisterium has authority to do such things, there is no problem. I’ll allow it! LOL! Isn’t that gracious of me?

I will take a crack at it. We know that at least some of the Apostles, like Peter, were married. There is some disagreement about the fate of those wives but most scholars believe that they accompanied their husbands in their travels. So the early Church leaders, including Priests and Bishops, were married. As 1 Timothy says, they were expected to have just one wife.

By the 300’s there was an expectation that single clergy would not have relations with a woman or get married, and the Council of Nicea set that rule. Note that the Eastern Church, and the Eastern Rite Catholic church allowed their Priests to be married.

We know that the rules were not followed and for many centuries we have Priests, Bishops and even Popes with concubines and children. At the First Lateran Council of 1123, the Church prohibited clergy from keeping concubines and referred to the requirements of the Nicean Council. That effectively ended any form of open relationship between Priests and women.

But I recall one passage in a history of the Church involving this issue where an observer made the claim that the Church couldn’t suddenly allow Priests to marry again, not because of doctrine, but because the rush of Priests to marry their girlfriends would be scandalous.

And your point about the Church at some time “requiring” Bishops to be married, based on the verses from 1 Timothy, is an interesting one. I don’t know if there was ever any such requirement, but one could understand why the Church community at that time would prefer to have a married Bishop than one who was single and could easily get involved in an affair.

I like those rules from 1 Timothy; we all should follow them, Priests, Bishops, and the Laity.

 

[Church_Militant]

Your definition of “lacking charity” may well be “flawed” I guess. Why I post the way I do

You never seem to touch on what the whole point of that article is about, so I’ll try to spell it out for you.

Priestly celibacy does not have its roots in Sacred Tradition except insofar as the scriptures themselves can be considered to have come to us from Sacred Tradition as handed down from the apostles to the Church, right?

It is very clear that Our Lord Himself sets celibacy as a standard in Matthew 19:10-12 and that St. Paul agrees, though both point out that it is a discipline that not all can accept and that those who can should.

I think it is great that the Latin Rite Catholic Church at least makes the option available to those who feel called to it, and that there are rites in communion with Rome that allow for married priests, though IIRC they also have some celibacy disciplines as well.

My point is that celibacy comes from Our Lord Himself and is not merely a tradition of men as some a-Cs will try to allege.

In these points I don’t think we have any disagreement do we?

 

[Omyo12]

Your definition of “lacking charity” may well be “flawed” I guess. Why I post the way I do

You never seem to touch on what the whole point of that article is about, so I’ll try to spell it out for you.

Priestly celibacy does not have its roots in Sacred Tradition except insofar as the scriptures themselves can be considered to have come to us from Sacred Tradition as handed down from the apostles to the Church, right?

It is very clear that Our Lord Himself sets celibacy as a standard in Matthew 19:10-12 and that St. Paul agrees, though both point out that it is a discipline that not all can accept and that those who can should.

I think it is great that the Latin Rite Catholic Church at least makes the option available to those who feel called to it, and that there are rites in communion with Rome that allow for married priests, though IIRC they also have some celibacy disciplines as well.

My point is that celibacy comes from Our Lord Himself and is not merely a tradition of men as some a-Cs will try to allege.

In these points I don’t think we have any disagreement do we?

I don’t think it has anything to do with the content but how the content is presented.

I read your blog post and to me it didn’t seem that bad in regards to charity (content was of course top grade! ).

However, it’s always good to listen to criticisms of your blogs. This is because you’re aim is to reach OTHER people. So key to making a good blog, especially if you’re trying to evangelize non-Catholics, is to take criticisms and think why such claims are made.

If you want your blogs to be exclusively read by fellow Catholics defending the faith, then the way you write is great!
However, if you also aim to evangelize non-Catholics, the sarcastic undertones may drive curious non-Catholics away…
For example, look at “Where is That in the Bible?” by Patrick Madrid, its very apologetic but professional.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t think it has anything to do with the content but how the content is presented.

I read your blog post and to me it didn’t seem that bad in regards to charity (content was of course top grade! ).

However, it’s always good to listen to criticisms of your blogs. This is because you’re aim is to reach OTHER people. So key to making a good blog, especially if you’re trying to evangelize non-Catholics, is to take criticisms and think why such claims are made.

If you want your blogs to be exclusively read by fellow Catholics defending the faith, then the way you write is great!
However, if you also aim to evangelize non-Catholics, the sarcastic undertones may drive curious non-Catholics away…
For example, look at “Where is That in the Bible?” by Patrick Madrid, its very apologetic but professional.

A good point. Thanks.

 

[Genesius]

Your definition of “lacking charity” may well be “flawed” I guess. Why I post the way I do

You never seem to touch on what the whole point of that article is about, so I’ll try to spell it out for you.

Priestly celibacy does not have its roots in Sacred Tradition except insofar as the scriptures themselves can be considered to have come to us from Sacred Tradition as handed down from the apostles to the Church, right?

It is very clear that Our Lord Himself sets celibacy as a standard in Matthew 19:10-12 and that St. Paul agrees, though both point out that it is a discipline that not all can accept and that those who can should.

I think it is great that the Latin Rite Catholic Church at least makes the option available to those who feel called to it, and that there are rites in communion with Rome that allow for married priests, though IIRC they also have some celibacy disciplines as well.

My point is that celibacy comes from Our Lord Himself and is not merely a tradition of men as some a-Cs will try to allege.

In these points I don’t think we have any disagreement do we?

Yes, as you say, I was not referring to “traditions of men” like Protestants would. I was referring to Sacred Tradition. What makes me think that the celibacy REQUIREMENT which currently exists is based upon tradition, or a change in Sacred Tradition at some point in the Church is because as you point out, at the time of the writing of the Scriptures (all those you refer to in your blog, and in this post) priestly celibacy was AT LEAST optional, and as 1st Timothy would SEEM at face value to indicate, was even considered improper (Again, I refer to the term MUST, which would indicate a requirement would it not?)

Even if we agree that it was at least optional at the time of the writings for a priest to be married and have offspring, it is by no means optional today (except of course for those in Eastern churches, or those who were married prior to becoming a priest, etc.). I’m speaking however of the standard of today (not the exception). Therefore, it would seem that at some point in Church history there would have had to be a change in the standard, would it not?

If you read other posts here you will see what I mean.

 

[Genesius]

I don’t think it has anything to do with the content but how the content is presented.

I read your blog post and to me it didn’t seem that bad in regards to charity (content was of course top grade! ).

However, it’s always good to listen to criticisms of your blogs. This is because you’re aim is to reach OTHER people. So key to making a good blog, especially if you’re trying to evangelize non-Catholics, is to take criticisms and think why such claims are made.

If you want your blogs to be exclusively read by fellow Catholics defending the faith, then the way you write is great!
However, if you also aim to evangelize non-Catholics, the sarcastic undertones may drive curious non-Catholics away…
For example, look at “Where is That in the Bible?” by Patrick Madrid, its very apologetic but professional.

Thank you, OMYO, that was precisely what I was getting at.

 

[Nita]

I would also be interested to know when the celibate tradition began, since the above passage seems to indicate it had not yet begun at the time of the writing of 1st Timothy.

Here is an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Scroll about 1/3 of the way down, to the section titled in blue “History of Clerical Celibacy”

newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

 

[Genesius]

Here is an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Scroll about 1/3 of the way down, to the section titled in blue “History of Clerical Celibacy”

newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

Ahhh, thank you for the link. I hope it’s okay to post an excerpt from said link for sake of clarification, but this brings up another interesting point…

"“Holy Church”, he [St. Epiphanius] says, “respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death”

Particularly, “…who if married gives up his wife…” would this be a case of divorce, or anulment? Since the Church does not recognize divorce, it would have to be anulment. However, if anulled, the Church would be saying they were never married to begin with, which could be viewed as a scandal?

 

[Nita]

Ahhh, thank you for the link. I hope it’s okay to post an excerpt from said link for sake of clarification, but this brings up another interesting point…

"“Holy Church”, he [St. Epiphanius] says, “respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death”

Particularly, “…who if married gives up his wife…” would this be a case of divorce, or anulment? Since the Church does not recognize divorce, it would have to be anulment. However, if anulled, the Church would be saying they were never married to begin with, which could be viewed as a scandal?

It would not mean divorce or annulment. It would mean separation – living apart from each other. The other possibility (which I think also occurred sometimes) was to live in the same house, but to cease having sexual relations.

 

[erikd]

Exodus Chapter 19
15: And he said to the people, “Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman.”

1 Samuel Chapter 21
4: And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” 5: And David answered the priest, “Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

Jeremiah Chapter 16
1: The word of the LORD came to me: 2: "You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place.

Matthew Chapter 19
12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

1 Corinthians Chapter 7
32: I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33: but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34: and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35: I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
37: But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38: So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Canon 3. The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.
Council of Nicaea 325 AD

1. Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.
   Council of Elvira 306 AD

 

[Genesius]

Thank you for all your responses. That certainly clears things up for me. Though I can answer most common objections from non-Catholic Christians I am still growing in my newfound Catholic faith, and most internal matters are still a mystery to me.

About a year ago I was invited to a discernment retreat at Mt. Angel, Oregon (Benedictine) and it was a very humbling experience. I realized that I had a long way to go before considering such a thing, though I am ahead in some ways (living the celibate life).

Again, thank you.