1 Timothy 3:1-7 and celibacy?

[Mt_28_19_20]

1. How do those considering a vow of celibacy, and those who have taken the vow, interpret 1 Tim 3:1-7?
2. How would a young child interpret the passage?
3. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire 1 Timothy 4:1-5 to follow this passage?

1 Timothy 3:1-7 “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, 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?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

1 Timothy 4:1-5 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

 

[tkdnick]

1 Timothy 3:1-7 says that a bishop cannot be the husband of more than one wife. It doesn’t say he has to be a husband. There were bishops in the early church who were married, though there seems to be some debate as to whether they would live with their spouse as brother & sister instead of as spouses at that point. Celibacy is a practice, not a set doctrine. It is something that can be changed.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 is talking about a complete rejection of marriage, not the choice by some to refrain from marriage. The Church does not reject marriage. The Church embraces marriage for the majority of people. However, there are a select few who have chosen to refrain from marriage in order to tend to God’s flock (priests).

Matthew 19:12 says “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” A priest in the Latin Rite is someone who has chosen to refrain from marriage for the sake of the kingdom.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

1 Timothy 3:1-7 says that a bishop cannot be the husband of more than one wife. It doesn’t say he has to be a husband.

Does it really say that, or do we make it say that to fit celibacy? Does anyone really, truly believe that interpretation/explanation?

It definitely does not say he cannot be married, especially since it mentions his children.

“He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity”

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

Does it really say that, or do we make it say that to fit celibacy? Does anyone really, truly believe that interpretation/explanation?

It definitely does not say he cannot be married, especially since it mentions his children.

“He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity”

Michael

You tell me. Does it say that a bishop HAS to be married?

You’re right - a bishop must manage his own household well. If that includes a wife and kids, then he needs to manage them well.

Tradition and many scholars tell us that most, if not all, of the Apostles were unmarried. They were the first priests & bishops. Paul himself, who wrote 1 Timothy, was a bishop and an unmarried man. Why would Paul write that a bishop MUST be married if most or all of the first bishops were not married?

 

[Della]

1. How do those considering a vow of celibacy, and those who have taken the vow, interpret 1 Tim 3:1-7?
2. How would a young child interpret the passage?

A young child’s interpretation is not an authorative one any more than yours or mine are. It is the Church that determines what the proper interpretation is in matters of faith and morals.

1. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire 1 Timothy 4:1-5 to follow this passage?

You seem to be telling us that your imperfect reading of these passages, or even my imperfect reading, is the same thing as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t, you know. It was not written for you or I to interpret. It was written to give instructions to the bishops of the very early Church.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, 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?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

Marriage is not a requirement for being a bishop, never has never will be. If that were the case every bishop would have to marry whether he was inclined to marry or not or could even find a good woman to marry. All it is saying is that a bishop should be the husband of ONE wife, if he is going to be married. You have remember the times in which this was written–when men were allowed to have more than one wife.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

This passage is totally unrelated to the first one you cited. It is not at all saying that celibacy for the priesthood is forbidden or wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t mention bishops in this passage at all. Anyone may be celibate if they wish–no one has to get married. When a man of the Latin Rite is accepted for the priesthood he knows he is committing himself to celibacy as a condition of the Latin Rite priesthood. No one puts a gun to his back to make him remain celibate, it is a decision he makes of his own free will.

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

1. How do those considering a vow of celibacy, and those who have taken the vow, interpret 1 Tim 3:1-7?

The passage tells us that a bishop cannot be married to more than one wife. It tells us that he must manage his household in a dignified and proper way… in other words, a bishop must live his life respectably and in line with the Word of God. It does not mean that a bishop must be married or even that he must have the option, it simply means that if he is married, he must act in that marriage according to God’s requirements.

1. How would a young child interpret the passage?

It doesn’t matter, a young child is not a reliable source of teaching or doctrine. But for the sake of argument, if a young child’s opinion did matter in this case and we were to ask him or her, the child probably wouldn’t understand the passage anyway. He/she probably wouldn’t even understand what is meant by “overseer”… so it really doesn’t matter.

1. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire 1 Timothy 4:1-5 to follow this passage?

To tell us that bishops are not permitted to reject the explicit teachings of God – which they do not…

1 Timothy 3:1-7 “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, 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?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

1 Timothy 4:1-5 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

 

[Genesis315]

And yet St. Paul and St. John were celebates. St. Paul even encouraged celibacy. Why would he do that if bishops had to be married?

As for little children, they tend to be pretty bad at reading (barring prodigies). On the other hand, they trust their fathers with uncoditional docility. We should trust our spiritual fathers, such as the Pope and bishops in union with him.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You tell me. Does it say that a bishop HAS to be married?

Well, for some reason it was not written as:

“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, 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, (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

And yet St. Paul and St. John were celebates. St. Paul even encouraged celibacy. Why would he do that if bishops had to be married?

Saint John being celebate, I have no reason to think he was or was not.

Saint Paul, from what he wrote in 1 Cor 7, may have been a widower? On what do you base that Paul was celibate? Surely not on 1 Timothy 3?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

As for little children, they tend to be pretty bad at reading (barring prodigies). On the other hand, they trust their fathers with uncoditional docility. We should trust our spiritual fathers, such as the Pope and bishops in union with him.

Well, if it was read to them and words explained so they could understand, do you think they would say the passage says priests/elders should or should not be allowed to be married, and that those that in word and deed love their families well, as witnessed by raising the children with dignity, would be good choices for being a priest? Or would they say, it doesn’t mean they have to be married, just not married more than once? When I was a child, the idea of someone being married more than once seemed unusual.

Mt 18:2-4 "And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

This passage is totally unrelated to the first one you cited. It is not at all saying that celibacy for the priesthood is forbidden or wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t mention bishops in this passage at all. Anyone may be celibate if they wish–no one has to get married. When a man of the Latin Rite is accepted for the priesthood he knows he is committing himself to celibacy as a condition of the Latin Rite priesthood. No one puts a gun to his back to make him remain celibate, it is a decision he makes of his own free will.

And post #6 contains this statement about 1 Tim 4:
“To tell us that bishops are not permitted to reject the explicit teachings of God – which they do not…”

I agree there is a possibility that the passages are unrelated, yet am more inclined to suspect they are related, one coming soon after the other. On what reasoning do you say they are totally unrelated? Or is that possibility that they are related and the implications of that too difficult to look at?

And yes, it does not mention bishops at all. Which makes me think it might be a general warning not to forbid marriage to anyone. And yes, no one has to get married. The passage doesn’t seem to be saying that, only that some will forbid marriage. Who is forbids marriage? It does not seem to warn against those who don’t desire to be married, seems to warn against those who forbid those with a desire to marry? Any one in recent history or current time who forbid some to marry, that this may apply to?

It also says “some will fall away from the faith”, so it is not those outside of the faith, but those of the faith that fall away. Would this exclude applying this warning to other faiths and denominations?

Michael

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A man is not ‘forbidden to marry’ should he have the calling to be a priest.

He ‘chooses’ not to marry in order to accept the Spirit given discipline of the Church.

If a man desires to marry more than he desires to be a priest, then he is totally free to marry.

So if you’re thinking the Church is guilty of some mass ‘forbiddings’ of marriage. . .you’re in error.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

1 Timothy 3:1-7 says that a bishop cannot be the husband of more than one wife.

What would be the point of Paul saying that, was it not already clear from the Old Testament and Christ’s teaching in the Gospels, including Matthew 19, that the two become one?

Michael

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

What would be the point of Paul saying that, was it not already clear from the Old Testament and Christ’s teaching in the Gospels, including Matthew 19, that the two become one?

Michael

He is using it as one example to clearly illustrate his broader point that bishops must adhere to the Word of God. You’re right – we already know from the Bible that a man may not have more than one wife – he is saying that the bishops must follow these laws just like anybody else. If he used something that we didn’t already know, he wouldn’t be clearly illustrating the point. You’re assuming that he is intending to give us new laws rather than simply say that the bishops are not above the previously-established laws.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

A man is not ‘forbidden to marry’ should he have the calling to be a priest.

He ‘chooses’ not to marry in order to accept the Spirit given discipline of the Church.

If a man desires to marry more than he desires to be a priest, then he is totally free to marry.

So if you’re thinking the Church is guilty of some mass ‘forbiddings’ of marriage. . .you’re in error.

If seminary canditates and seminaries were told they could become priest without vowing celibacy, (renouncing the possibility of marriage), how many would "choose’ to take a vow of celibacy? If it is not forbidden, allow them the choice. If they are not allowed the choice, it is forbidden. How many priests left after Vatican II because they were hoping the “tradition” would change? Was it something like 26,000? Who “chose” celibacy, and then had a change of heart? Or were they forbidden, and hoping they would no longer be forbidden?

I have thought about being a priest, yet I will not agree to a changeable tradition that I disagree with after prayerful discernment.

Michael

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

I have thought about being a priest, yet I will not agree to a changeable tradition that I disagree with after prayerful discernment.

Michael

Well, that’s your choice. And by the way, can you please back up those numbers with some kind of citation or credible source please?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You’re assuming that he is intending to give us new laws rather than simply say that the bishops are not above the previously-established laws.

What new laws am I assuming he is intending to give?

It was already widely known that Peter had at some time been married, and may have still been married.

If Jesus intended Mt 19:12 to teach/support celibacy for priests, then Paul would be going against that by saying priests/elders should be the husband of one wife, keeping his children under control with all dignity. Why would Paul even risk the appearance of a contrary teaching?

Michael

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

What new laws am I assuming he is intending to give?

It was already widely known that Peter had at some time been married, and may have still been married.

If Jesus intended Mt 19:12 to teach/support celibacy for priests, then Paul would be going against that by saying priests/elders should be the husband of one wife, keeping his children under control with all dignity. Why would Paul even risk the appearance of a contrary teaching?

Michael

You’re missing my point – you’ve asked why Paul would bother saying that a bishop could only have one wife since that’s already taught. In that, you assume that the point of Paul stating anything is to teach something new – which as I previously stated, in this case, it is not.

As for Mt 19:12 I didn’t quote that passage. But I would suggest that it’s possible that Jesus, being God, Who knows all, knew that there would be some Rites in the Church (the Latin for example) that would require priests to be celibate, while others would not.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Well, that’s your choice. And by the way, can you please back up those numbers with some kind of citation or credible source please?

I asked it as a question, since I don’t have the source. Will try to find it, heard it at a Catholic conference a few months ago. That said, I was surprised at the numbers when I saw them. Do you think I am making this up or fabricating? How many do you think left?

Michael

 

[NewGuyInChurch]

I asked it as a question, since I don’t have the source. Will try to find it, heard it at a Catholic conference a few months ago. That said, I was surprised at the numbers when I saw them. Do you think I am making this up or fabricating? How many do you think left?

Michael

You seem awfully defensive since nobody has implied that you are fabricating anything – only asking for you to back up your statements. I don’t know how many (if any) left for the reasons you’ve stated – I wonder how many more joined up in the years since?