1 Timothy 3:1-7 and celibacy?

[Mt_28_19_20]

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.

No, I’m asking for clarification about your beliefs about married bishops based upon your use of Mt 16:21.

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?

I did not assume the change of words was intentional. Yet a change in wording to must be married might be construed to exclude widowers.

I would not characterize it that I used Mt 16:21. I asked to apply your view on “must” in 1 Tim 3 to Mt 16:21 and see what the implications would be. “Let’s apply that to Mt 16:21”

Which matters more, what I believe, or what Scripture says, which we have from the Catholic Church through the Holy Spirit?
Do I think 1 Tim 3 excludes bishops from being married? No.
Do I think chosing men consistent with 1 Tim 3 to be bishops is consistent with Scripture, and good for the body of Christ, the Catholic Church? Yes.
Do I think becoming a widower excludes a man from being a bishop? No.
Have there been married Popes? Yes.
Have there been married bishops? Yes.
Was Peter married? Yes.
Was Mary married. Yes.
Was Moses married? Yes.
Was Zacharias, a priest, married to Elizabeth? Yes.

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

I did not assume the change of words was intentional. Yet a change in wording to must be married might be construed to exclude widowers.

I would not characterize it that I used Mt 16:21. I asked to apply your view on “must” in 1 Tim 3 to Mt 16:21 and see what the implications would be. “Let’s apply that to Mt 16:21”

Which matters more, what I believe, or what Scripture says, which we have from the Catholic Church through the Holy Spirit?
Do I think 1 Tim 3 excludes bishops from being married? No.
Do I think chosing men consistent with 1 Tim 3 to be bishops is consistent with Scripture, and good for the body of Christ, the Catholic Church? Yes.
Do I think becoming a widower excludes a man from being a bishop? No.
Have there been married Popes? Yes.
Have there been married bishops? Yes.
Was Peter married? Yes.
Was Mary married. Yes.
Was Moses married? Yes.
Was Zacharias, a priest, married to Elizabeth? Yes.

Michael

The Church does not exclude widowers, or even married men in certain cases, from becoming priests. The general rule for widowers (and I don’t remember where I heard this, probably Catholic Answers) is that they must wait roughly 1-2 years after their spouse’s death to enter seminary and their children must be old enough to not be burden, which usually means at least 18.

I have heard of two ways that married men can become priests:

1. If a married clergymember from another religion converts to Catholicism there are certain provisions that allow in certain circumstances for them to become priests.
2. If a priest at a parish dies and a replacement priest is too difficult to find, it is possible for a married deacon of that parish to become a priest. I have heard there are certain restrictive provisions on this though, like they are never allowed to leave that parish.

I also know of an interesting situation here in my diocese. This is 3rd hand info, so take that as you wish. A local priest found out that his good friend from college had cancer and was very likely to die and her daughter would have no one. This priest got permission from the bishop to marry this woman and live a life as brother and sister so that she would have medical coverage, someone to help her as she got worse, and so that her daughter would have someone to take care of her. The woman passed on and the priest raised the daughter as his own.

Do I think 1 Tim 3 excludes bishops from being married? No.
I would totally agree with you here. However, The Church has instituted the practice/discipline of clergy being unmarried & celibate.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Do I think 1 Tim 3 excludes bishops from being married? No.
I would totally agree with you here. However, The Church has instituted the practice/discipline of clergy being unmarried & celibate.

Do you think the Church steps around the message of 1 Tim 3 in instituting “the practice/discipline of clergy being unmarried & celibate”?

Do you think it is a “tradition” because God will not allow His Church to make it a “Tradtion”?

How in the world did we get married Popes if that was contrary to God’s will?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You asked about what I thought about Dubay’s book. I posted a thread in that regard in the vocations section.

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

Do you think the Church steps around the message of 1 Tim 3 in instituting “the practice/discipline of clergy being unmarried & celibate”?

Do you think it is a “tradition” because God will not allow His Church to make it a “Tradtion”?

How in the world did we get married Popes if that was contrary to God’s will?

No, I don’t see them as stepping around it. I see it as The Church making a choice in discipline that I believe ultimately improves the life of The Church.

I think it’s a small “t” tradition because it is a chosen practice of the Latin Rite just like any other chosen practice. It is not a revealed truth that must be held & believed by every Catholic. There is nothing theologically or dogmatically preventing The Church from allowing married clergy.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

It is not a revealed truth that must be held & believed by every Catholic.

So some can believe it and some do not need to believe it?

Are we not to believe all truth? If it is truth, why can some choose to not believe it? If it is truth, why not make it Tradition?

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

So some can believe it and some do not need to believe it?

Are we not to believe all truth? If it is truth, why can some choose to not believe it? If it is truth, why not make it Tradition?

Michael

But that’s just it. It’s not “a truth” in that sense. It’s a choice. A practice that The Church has chosen to engage in. It is not required by God or the Bible, or anything like that.

There are plenty of people who do not beleive a celibate priesthood is a good idea. I used to be one of them. It is possible to have a differing view on this, but it is important that we express our views politely and in a way that builds up The Church. However, we are also called to assent to the wisdom of The Church.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

It is not required by God or the Bible, or anything like that.

I agree, celibacy is not required by God or the Bible.

And yet is a general requirement for Roman Catholic priests.

God and the Bible ask require us to obey God, and we ask God for forgiveness when we God against what God teaches through His Church and the Bible. We are not to have lustful thoughts, or commit adultry, or fornication, or steal, or lie, or bear false witness. We are to love one another in spirit and truth. These are required by God and His Bible through His Church. God does not require us to believe in celibacy for priests, and 1 Tim 3 appears to contradict celibacy for bishops, etc…

Celibacy is not required by God or the Bible. Loving God with all our heart is required. Marriage does not intrinsically cause one to be divided in love of God, as we see many examples in the Old and New Testament.

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

I agree, celibacy is not required by God or the Bible.

And yet is a general requirement for Roman Catholic priests.

Neither is the color of a cardinal’s hat. And yet all Roman Catholic cardinals wear red.

God can’t give a definitive answer or rule for every single aspect of life. He created a church hierarchy to govern His Church on earth. Those leaders are called to govern in a prudent matter. The Church has decided that for the time being priests should be celibate. It is possible (though I don’t think likely) that this could be changed at pretty much any time.

 

[tkdnick]

I agree, celibacy is not required by God or the Bible.

And yet is a general requirement for Roman Catholic priests.

God and the Bible ask require us to obey God, and we ask God for forgiveness when we God against what God teaches through His Church and the Bible. We are not to have lustful thoughts, or commit adultry, or fornication, or steal, or lie, or bear false witness. We are to love one another in spirit and truth. These are required by God and His Bible through His Church. God does not require us to believe in celibacy for priests, and 1 Tim 3 appears to contradict celibacy for bishops, etc…

Celibacy is not required by God or the Bible. Loving God with all our heart is required. Marriage does not intrinsically cause one to be divided in love of God, as we see many examples in the Old and New Testament.

Michael

The color of a cardinal’s hat is not required by God or the Bible either. And yet all Roman Catholic cardinals wear red. The Novus Ordo Mass isn’t required by God or the Bible, but it’s the one we use. There are lots of practices and disciplines within The Church that are not required by God or the Bible. God can’t give a definitive answer or rule for every single aspect of life. He created a church hierarchy to govern His Church on earth. Those leaders are called to govern in a prudent matter. The Church has decided that for the time being priests should be celibate. It is possible (though I don’t think likely) that this could be changed at pretty much any time.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

The color of a cardinal’s hat is not required by God or the Bible either. And yet all Roman Catholic cardinals wear red. The Novus Ordo Mass isn’t required by God or the Bible, but it’s the one we use. There are lots of practices and disciplines within The Church that are not required by God or the Bible. God can’t give a definitive answer or rule for every single aspect of life. He created a church hierarchy to govern His Church on earth. Those leaders are called to govern in a prudent matter. The Church has decided that for the time being priests should be celibate. It is possible (though I don’t think likely) that this could be changed at pretty much any time.

Cardinal’s hat color, or even having a hat, you are correct, are not required by God or the Bible. 1 Tim 3 appears to say that bishops are at least permitted to be married. Celibacy requirement appears to contradict this.

If 1 Tim 3 said the cardinal must wear a red hat, the way some interpret 1 Tim 3, wouldn’t they say: It doesn’t say they have to wear a hat, or a red one at that, if they chose not to wear one for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, that is a greater sacrifice and obedience to God. As long as they do not wear two red hats, or a green hat, then they are not contradicting the spirit of Scripture.

The Bible does show us that He created a Church hierarchy to govern. The Bible also says we are sinners, whether lay person or priest, or bishop. It does not say the hierarchy will be perfect.

Michael

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I disagree. First, to argue that celibacy is not ‘required’ by God. So long as it is a discipline of the Church, it is a ‘discipline’ to which the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit. (Who, last I knew, was “God.”) God does not ‘require’ of us marriage, you know; but no one is arguing that for an individual marriage might not be good. Therefore, for an individual, celibacy might likewise be good. And of course, both marriage and celibacy are praised in Scripture.

Second, the problem with “God and Scripture” is that one omits something very important–Sacred Tradition. You see, God did not found a book. . .He founded a Church. That Church (led by the Spirit) used both the teachings “by word of mouth and by letter” as St. Paul tells us. You will not find the concept of the Trinity as three divine persons in one God in Scripture in its ‘fullness’. . .but Sacred Tradition, using Scripture and the Spirit, has given us the ‘fullness of truth’ which Christ, in Scripture, promised the Spirit would 'lead us to."

Sacred Tradition will not and does not contradict Sacred Scripture–and vice versa.

Here is a conundrum to consider. Sacred Scripture in John 6 tells us that Christ gives us HIS OWN FLESH to eat. . .a saying so hard that many of His followers “left Him and went away.”

Through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition the understanding of transubstantiation was held as Christian dogma for 1500 years (and remains held by the Orthodox and Catholics today).

Yet in 1500 or so, Protestants started (and most of them believe to this day) to believe, not Sacred Scripture, but a man-made ‘interpretation’ of Scripture that those words were ‘symbolic only.’ And this was not a ‘development’ of dogma, in that it flat-out contradicts not just the words of Scripture itself but the traditional practice of Christianity for 1500 years.

So just who is following what “Scripture says?”

The ones who read Scripture according to the Spirit and have steadfastly maintained Scripture with no possible ‘flat out contradiction’ of "literal to symbolic’. . .

or the ones who point to a passage as saying, “it says a bishop MUST be married” even though there is no ‘must’ about it? “If bishops are married, they must have one wife only” (in a time where polygamy and unlawful divorced were known) is a very different statement from “a bishop must have a wife.”

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I disagree. First, to argue that celibacy is not ‘required’ by God. So long as it is a discipline of the Church, it is a ‘discipline’ to which the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit. (Who, last I knew, was “God.”)

Then how did Alexander VI get to be Pope? Or other married Popes and bishops. Those who elected Alexander did not know him well enought to know about his children? It’s not like they were kept secret.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Second, the problem with “God and Scripture” is that one omits something very important–Sacred Tradition. You see, God did not found a book. . .He founded a Church. That Church (led by the Spirit) used both the teachings “by word of mouth and by letter” as St. Paul tells us. You will not find the concept of the Trinity as three divine persons in one God in Scripture in its ‘fullness’. . .but Sacred Tradition, using Scripture and the Spirit, has given us the ‘fullness of truth’ which Christ, in Scripture, promised the Spirit would 'lead us to."

No argurment here on Sacred Tradition. Yet we are told by God, through Scripture to test what we are told, and that Scripture itself is useful for correcting. Of course not Scripture alone, but not Scripture excluded or twisted.

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

Cardinal’s hat color, or even having a hat, you are correct, are not required by God or the Bible. 1 Tim 3 appears to say that bishops are at least permitted to be married. Celibacy requirement appears to contradict this.

True. At that time bishops were allowed to be married. But The Church has decided that priests should be celibate in the Latin Rite. There are plenty of Eastern Rites that allow married priests.

The Bible does show us that He created a Church hierarchy to govern. The Bible also says we are sinners, whether lay person or priest, or bishop. It does not say the hierarchy will be perfect.

Very true, and I will submit to you that it is possible the hierarchy will at some point decide that a celibate priesthood was not the best idea. At the same time I understand why The Church asks priests to be celibate and I support it and think it’s a good idea. We believe that God protects His Church from committing doctrinal error, not necessarily governing error. However, I don’t believe this to be a governing error. I think a celibate priesthood is the right course.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Very true, and I will submit to you that it is possible the hierarchy will at some point decide that a celibate priesthood was not the best idea.

I wonder what point that will be, perhaps some sexual scandal, or a significant decline in the number of Catholics who take their faith seriously, of those who even understand it?

Wihile some are concerned about the state of Catholic faith and witness, some focus on the heirarchy, and claim that the approval of the congregation is not needed, as it is not a democracy.

Acts 6:5 “The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.”

Does celibacy find approval with even the majority of the congregation?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

We believe that God protects His Church from committing doctrinal error, not necessarily governing error. However, I don’t believe this to be a governing error. I think a celibate priesthood is the right course.

I agree that God protects His Church from doctrinal error.

I believe celibacy to be a governing error, and contrary to Scripture. (That is not to say everyone must marry. It is saying that vowing never to marry, despite who God might bring into your life to love, is contrary to Scripture.)

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

I wonder what point that will be, perhaps some sexual scandal, or a significant decline in the number of Catholics who take their faith seriously, of those who even understand it?

I think it’s totally erroneous to try and blame any sex scandal on the fact that our priests are unmarried. There are just as many, if not more, scandals among other religions. They just don’t get publicity because the Catholic church is the most visible church to attack.

I’m not sure how having unmarried priests contributes to Catholics not taking their faith seriously.

I would contend that I think it’s totally possible and plausible that the Latin Rite never changes the practice of a celibate priesthood.

Wihile some are concerned about the state of Catholic faith and witness, some focus on the heirarchy, and claim that the approval of the congregation is not needed, as it is not a democracy.

Well it’s not a democracy. But there had to have been approval among the bishops in order for something like this to be instituted.

Does celibacy find approval with even the majority of the congregation?

I think you might be surprised.

 

[tkdnick]

I believe celibacy to be a governing error…

Well you are certainly within your rights to believe this. However, as the faithful that make up The Church we are also called to give assent of will to The Church’s decisions.
1 Corinthians 1:11-12 “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.”

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

I think it’s totally erroneous to try and blame any sex scandal on the fact that our priests are unmarried.

Why? Do you think young unmarried men who renounce marriage and are put in positions of authority are more or less likely to molest children than a married man as descibed in 1 Tim 3?

Do you think an unmarried man, or a married man as described in 1 Tim 3 would be more likely to take the proper action when they discover a subordinate(s) molested a child?

One has been tested by time and the witness of their ability to love their spouse and children. The other is tested by what they renounce: marriage, a gift of God.

Michael