Some call it a choice.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?
No–you cannot garner any notion at all that Paul is a widower from 1 Corinthians 7. He never implied it, though he did explicitly state he is celibate. Not even most Protestant scholars think he ever married. The clue here is verse 7–he wished everyone to be as he is, meaning, celibate. He extolled celibacy greatly here, in fact. His point for the bishop having one wife is, as pointed out, that a bishop is a man of God, and as such, if he is married, should only have one wife. No one can gain the notion there that he says a bishop must be married, unless the one reading it has anti-Catholic biases.Saint Paul, from what he wrote in 1 Cor 7, may have been a widower?
Since I wrote “Was it something like 26,000?”, seemed like you were asking me to back up something that I asked as a question. Still looking, did find this from Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate: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?
Actually, you can garner a notion that Paul is a widower. Where does he explicitly state that he is celibate or a virgin? If in 1 Cor 7 he is addressing in turn three groups:No–you cannot garner any notion at all that Paul is a widower from 1 Corinthians 7. He never implied it, though he did explicitly state he is celibate. Not even most Protestant scholars think he ever married. The clue here is verse 7–he wished everyone to be as he is, meaning, celibate. He extolled celibacy greatly here, in fact. His point for the bishop having one wife is, as pointed out, that a bishop is a man of God, and as such, if he is married, should only have one wife. No one can gain the notion there that he says a bishop must be married, unless the one reading it has anti-Catholic biases.
I am sorry; I went over the text again and again, but do not net anything that even implies he is talking only to the widowed here. I see this to be more like wishful thinking on your part than anything that’s actually in the text, or even implied as such.Actually, you can garner a notion that Paul is a widower. Where does he explicitly state that he is celibate or a virgin? If in 1 Cor 7 he is addressing in turn three groups:
1 unmarried (widowers?) and widows 1 Cor 7:8 “as I am”
He has nothing new that he cannot add which the Lord already said. Additionally, it is interesting that if he does not identify with this group, his saying that “are you free of a wife? Do not look for any” would be nonsensical, since he could not identify with them as you assume. But he did say it, and it would be offensive to those who read it for him to say so if he does not identify with that group himself.3 virgins 1 Cor 25 “I have no command”
Note–he also mentions unmarried, not merely those who are widows. His point here, as noted before, is that it is best to be as he is–unmarried. Nothing there that implies him to be a widower. as already stated.1 Cor 7:8
“But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.”
This is poor grasp of Christian history–the discipline for unmarried clergy came later; however, nothing there would indicate that he is against it, either.He at least seems to be saying that marriage is not a restriction from being a bishop.
I think you may be over emphasizing the importance of 1 word (must) at the expense of understanding the message of the entire passage.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
Yes, it would seem that way. However, during much of the OT times and even into NT times it was pretty common for people to have more than 1 wife. This was particularly common in the Roman empire, which would be where Paul and Timothy were preaching. So it would have been important in that type of setting to emphasize a monogamous relationship for those within The Church hierarchy.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
I would like to suggest two books to you to do some more in depth research if you are interested in this topic:This is not to be biased. I am Catholic, and was reading hoping to understand this Catholic tradition. So many times I’ve marvelled at the depth of Catholic doctrine and how it weaves marvelously with Scripture. And had hoped for the same when reading about celibacy.
I am not emphasing one word.I think you may be over emphasizing the importance of 1 word (must) at the expense of understanding the message of the entire passage.
Thank you. Already read them. And Cochini’s book. And talked with alot of priest and nuns, and read, and prayed, and waited, and …I would like to suggest two books to you to do some more in depth research if you are interested in this topic:
The Case for Clerical Celibacy by Alphonso M. Cardinal Stickler
And You Are Christ’s: The Charism of Virginity and the Celibate Life by Thomas Dubay
What did you think of them? I have not yet read either of them, but have had them suggested by other.Thank you. Already read them. And Cochini’s book. And talked with alot of priest and nuns, and read, and prayed, and waited, and …
Dubay’s book in particular, if I remember correctly, referred to Anna the prophetess, praying in the temple night and day, as an example of undivided attention to God, without mention that she had been married. Will double check tonight when I get home.
Michael
When I look at this, I notice what immediately follows the must:“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.”
I was disappointed. Thought verses were often taken out of context to focus on parts that taken alone would appear to support celibacy. Possible arguements against celibacy did not seem to be adequately addressed, and passages that might seem to contradict celibacy often were neglected. Sort of like a democrat or republican telling you why one should join their party, without taking a hard look at possible objections or other points of view.What did you think of them? I have not yet read either of them, but have had them suggested by other.
so that comma excludes the rest from “must”, making them optional.When I look at this, I notice what immediately follows the must:
To me, those are the three musts.
- be above reproach;
- be one who manages his own household well;
- have a good reputation with those outside the church.
I don’t see how Paul could say a bishop must be married if he himself is an unmarried bishop. He would be completely contradicting his own life if he were to be saying that.
I’m not sure I would say optional, but to me whatever is closest to the must is the most important. Like the thing Paul is really trying to emphasize.so that comma excludes the rest from “must”, making them optional.
If Paul was a widower, some see various passages coming together well. Some suggest that in 1 Cor 7, Paul groups himself with widows and widowers, and then goes on to talk about those that are married, and then those that have never been married/virgins
Michael
If Paul was a widower, and did not remarry ( as he encouraged widows not to remarry in 1 Cor 7:8), then he remained the husband of one wife. Why remarry if the two were one?I’m not real sure how being a possible widower would fit in. If your spouse dies and you remarry, aren’t you still the spouse of just one wife? Or would you consider that now being the spouse of two wives?
Let’s apply that to Mt 16:21I’m not sure I would say optional, but to me whatever is closest to the must is the most important. Like the thing Paul is really trying to emphasize.
So if we use your example of Mt 16:21 in connection with 1 Tim 3, are you saying you believe that Paul is saying a bishop **must **be married? And also that a bishop must have children?Let’s apply that to Mt 16:21
Mt 16:21 “From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.”
So if whatever is closest to the must is the most important, then going to Jerusalem is most important, compared to suffering, being killed, and being raised up on the third day?
How hard will we try to interpret 1 Tim 3 in a way that is consistent with celibacy?
Michael
Are you still going by “but to me whatever is closest to the must is the most important”?So if we use your example of Mt 16:21 in connection with 1 Tim 3, are you saying you believe that Paul is saying a bishop **must **be married? And also that a bishop must have children?
Oh my goodness! I wasn’t trying to change the wording to come up with an argument. Good grief, give me a break. I used the word married instead of husband of 1 wife. I wasn’t trying to exclude widowers I was trying to type a shorter post.Let’s not change the words to come up with an arguement. The words are “the husband of one wife”. It does not say must be married, so would not seem to exclude widowers.
No, I’m asking for clarification about your beliefs about married bishops based upon your use of Mt 16:21.Are you still going by "but to me whatever is closest to the must is the most important
This verse has the same type of comma separation structure as 1 Tim 3. So I’m asking you if you believe (based on your comments about Mt 16:21 and others) that a bishop must be the husband of 1 wife?Mt 16:21 “From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.”
So if whatever is closest to the must is the most important, then going to Jerusalem is most important, compared to suffering, being killed, and being raised up on the third day?
How hard will we try to interpret 1 Tim 3 in a way that is consistent with celibacy?