1 Timothy 4:1-5. Having trouble with this one

  • Thread starter Thread starter llowwelll
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

llowwelll

Guest
** 1 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,
2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

3 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.

4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;

5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. **

I’m wondering how we, as Catholics, are able to prohibit priests from marrying in light of this verse. It also makes me wonder how we were able to ban meat on Fridays in the past. Anyone willing to help me understand the Catholic view on this and how to explain it to my Protestant friends?
 
But marriage isn’t forbidden to Catholics. Not even being married and being a priest at the same time - you can switch to Eastern Rite Catholicism and be a married priest.

We simply recognise, along with St Paul, that the JOB of being a priest or nun tends to be somewhat easier for unmarried people. So do other factors, for example a certain period of study for priests, or living in common in monasteries or convents with other priests, monks or nuns.

As for not eating meat - Jesus himself is recorded as fasting rigorously, and advocated it to his Apostles and disciples - he said ‘WHEN you fast’ not ‘IF’, which shows that he considered it to be essential.

Certainly his mention of certain demons who can only be cast out with fasting as well as prayer also shows the vital importance of fasting. If it is so vital, why not make it mandatory??? Lord knows in our hugely overweight society more people would benefit from this sort of discipline, and not just on six or seven days of the year either.
 
I’ll deal with the meat issue.

We abstain from meat TWO days of the year now, but in the past it was a discipline, and only for one day of the week. This is different to a total ban on eating meat. It was to do with the Day, not the meat.

Spiritual virtue is exercised when we abstain from meat from a motive of self-denial, gratitude, and obedience to God.

The 1 Tim. 4:3 reference is to men who teach that meat is evil in itself and who declare that it is wicked to eat it under any circumstances. Sort of like those advocates of eco-spirituality, who advocate not eating meat because they believe that animals are part of “the divine”.
 
Thanks. Good answers.

However, on the issue of priests not being allowed to marry: what I don’t understand is why it is mandated that they not marry. In other words, I can completely understand, why the Church would encourage priests to not marry (1 Cor 7:8). However, I can’t understand why it is a rule in the Roman Catholic Church that they cannot marry in light of the various Scripture passages on the issue esp 1 Tim 4:1-5, 1 Tim 3:2, and 1 Cor 7:2
 
llowwelll said:
Thanks. Good answers.

However, on the issue of priests not being allowed to marry: what I don’t understand is why it is mandated that they not marry. In other words, I can completely understand, why the Church would encourage priests to not marry (1 Cor 7:8). However, I can’t understand why it is a rule in the Roman Catholic Church that they cannot marry in light of the various Scripture passages on the issue esp 1 Tim 4:1-5, 1 Tim 3:2, and 1 Cor 7:2
Click to expand...
Like I said, it’s not forbidden to priests to marry - only priests in the Latin rite. Remember the Eastern Catholic Rites, which permit married priests, are every bit as Catholic, every bit as valid, as the Latin Rite 🙂

Even within the restrictions on married priests within the Latin Rite, there are plenty of married Anglican clergy converts, for example, who are allowed to be ordained within the Latin Rite and stay married to their spouses.

If the church forbid EVERYONE to marry then you’d have a problem. But it doesn’t forbid anyone from marrying who wishes to do so. It restricts some from being married AND priests or nuns at the same time.

And this is because, as St Paul said, it is much preferable for EVERYONE, and especially for priests, to be unmarried. The job is too difficult, at least the way it is set up in our Latin Rite, for the huge majority of married men. The church, having had experience with married priests within the Latin rite for about the first 1,000 years or so, came to see the wisdom of this.

Now if you read the Biblical passage you’ve quoted hyper-literally, it could be seen as criticising any restriction on marriage, not just for priests and nuns. In others words that passage could be quoted against the restrictions in canon law which prohibit cousins or other family members from marrying each other, or the restrictions against polygamy and so on. Can you see the dangers of putting too narrow an interpretation on such passages?
 
LilyM,

Good point regarding forbidding cousins to marry and polygamy.

I do understand that it’s not dogma for priests to not marry; it’s a discipline. I understand the difference. I totally understand why it’s preferrable for a priest to not marry and why the Church encourages priests to not marry. However, I still don’t understand why priests in the Latin rite are forbidden to marry especially if they find themselves beginning to have a problem with lust (1 Cor 7:2).

BTW, what’s the difference between the Latin rite and the Eastern rite? I guess I’m more of a newbie than I thought.
 
llowwelll said:
Thanks. Good answers.

However, on the issue of priests not being allowed to marry: what I don’t understand is why it is mandated that they not marry. In other words, I can completely understand, why the Church would encourage priests to not marry (1 Cor 7:8). However, I can’t understand why it is a rule in the Roman Catholic Church that they cannot marry in light of the various Scripture passages on the issue esp 1 Tim 4:1-5, 1 Tim 3:2, and 1 Cor 7:2
Click to expand...
As long a suitable number of candidates are available, choosing to ordain to the priesthood only unmarried men who have taken a vow of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, in imitation of Jesus Christ himself, John the Baptist, and other holy men (Old Testament prophets), seems to be a prudent decision on the part of the Latin-rite of the Catholic Church, since such men are in a position to give all of their attention to their ministry, whereas the attention of married priests would necessarily be divided between their ministry and their family. (1 Cor 7:32-33) As long as the Church has the choice, why not make the disciplinary rule to ordain to the priesthood only those men who can commitment themselves full-time to their ministry?
 
Todd,

I understand your point. And I agree that it would not be unbiblical to offer preference to unmarried men. However, again, I can’t understand why it’s a prohibition and why, if a priest begins to have trouble with lust, he can’t marry.
 
llowwelll said:
LilyM,

Good point regarding forbidding cousins to marry and polygamy.

I do understand that it’s not dogma for priests to not marry; it’s a discipline. I understand the difference. I totally understand why it’s preferrable for a priest to not marry and why the Church encourages priests to not marry. However, I still don’t understand why priests in the Latin rite are forbidden to marry especially if they find themselves beginning to have a problem with lust (1 Cor 7:2).

BTW, what’s the difference between the Latin rite and the Eastern rite? I guess I’m more of a newbie than I thought.
Click to expand...
There are 20-some distinct Eastern Catholic Rites (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox churches) - listed as follows.
  • Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Egypt (1741)
  • Ethiopic Catholic Church (metropolia): Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
  • Maronite Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, USA, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
  • Syrian Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
  • Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): India, United States of America (1930)
  • Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States and Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
  • Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate): Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States of America (1692)
  • Syro-Malabar Church (major archiepiscopate): India, United States of America (at latest, 1599)
  • Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church (apostolic administration): Albania (1628)
  • Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): Belarus (1596)
  • Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate): Bulgaria (1861)
  • Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro (1611)
  • Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates): Greece, Turkey (1829)
  • Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Hungary (1646)
  • Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): Italy (Never separated)
  • Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Republic of Macedonia (1918)
  • Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate): Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Jerusalem, Brazil, USA, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
  • Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate): Romania, United States of America (1697)
  • Russian Byzantine Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
  • Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate): United States of America, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
  • Slovak Greek Catholic Church (two eparchies and an apostolic exarchate): Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
  • Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): Ukraine, Poland, USA, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)
They are different from the Latin Rite, and indeed from each other, in a lot of areas of liturgy and practice - for example the married priests issue - and usually closer to the Orthodox churches in these matters. But all the Eastern Catholic rites are in full communion with the Pope and are thus very much Catholic.
 
llowwelll said:
I do understand that it’s not dogma for priests to not marry; it’s a discipline. I understand the difference. I totally understand why it’s preferrable for a priest to not marry and why the Church encourages priests to not marry. However, I still don’t understand why priests in the Latin rite are forbidden to marry especially if they find themselves beginning to have a problem with lust (1 Cor 7:2).
Click to expand...
I think you are stuck on two points here. Firstly, priests in the Latin rite are not “forbidden to marry.” They choose not to marry, in the same way a man chooses to be faithful to one wife, because the priest of the Latin rite is vowed to love and serve the Church as a celibate, just as a married man is vowed to love and serve one wife.

Secondly, the quote from 1 Cor. 7:2 is directed at those who marry not those who take vows as celibates. Paul is saying, in essence, if you cannot be celibate then keep faithful to your wife or husband.

And remember, no man who desires to be a priest has a gun stuck in his back to compel him to be a priest. It’s a choice he makes freely–one that sets him apart for God alone, of which there are ample scriptural examples.

If the Church taught that no one is allowed to marry, then it would be wrong, but it cannot tell some they must marry if they desire celibacy.
 
llowwelll said:
Thanks. Good answers.

However, on the issue of priests not being allowed to marry: what I don’t understand is why it is mandated that they not marry.
Click to expand...
They are not “forbidden to marry.” They have freely chosen not to marry. After freely choosing to remain single, the Church invites them to discern whether or not they have a vocation to the priesthood. Some do, some don’t. Those who don’t, still remain celibate for the rest of their lives.

Men who choose to get married are simply never invited to discern whether they have a vocation to the priesthood.

The Church chooses to select her candidates from among men who have already taken a vow of celibacy, before they were ever invited to look into the priesthood, or ever knew that they might be qualified to do that.

I know several men like that, who took a vow of celibacy when they were young, were invited by the Bishop to attend Seminary, dropped out for various reasons, and have remained celibate from then until now and will most likely remain so until death, even though they will not become priests.

It’s not like we spring the celibacy thing on them the day after they are ordained - they have already chosen the celibate life, even before they were chosen to become priests.
I can’t understand why it’s a prohibition and why, if a priest begins to have trouble with lust, he can’t marry.
Click to expand...
Someone who has an issue with lust would make just as bad a husband as a priest, I should think.
 
llowwelll said:
** 1 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,
2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

3 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.

4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;

5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. **

I’m wondering how we, as Catholics, are able to prohibit priests from marrying in light of this verse. It also makes me wonder how we were able to ban meat on Fridays in the past. Anyone willing to help me understand the Catholic view on this and how to explain it to my Protestant friends?
Click to expand...
Don’t think this has to do with Priests. I think it has to do with the foreshadowing of co-habitation where folks just aren’t getting married at all sometimes anymore. Plus, sometimes priests refuse to marry couples if he thinks a serious reason exists, like cohabitation and such.
 
Lust is not a good thing. People do not marry to stop lust, people marry because they love. Priests have chosen to love God in a special way. Do we allow divorce when the first person we love and marry no longer attracts us?
 
I’ve skimmed the posts and I don’t know if this was addressed. I’m a convert so maybe I am getting this wrong.

I was under the impression that both the sacrament of marriage and priesthood were equal in the eyes of God. A married priest could not give his all to both jobs. It can’t be done. Either the priest’s duties will be neglected or his wife and family will. How is a priest going to hear an emergency confession from a dying man when his own wife is in labor? Or fairly make any number of such choices.

The wives of Protestant pastors often view their wifely role as a mission in itself. Their husband’s put their energy into his pastorship and the wives accept this as God’s will. This has always seemed unfair to me. Being a husband is not less important then being a priest or pastor.

So, I hope that our priests remain celebate.
 
deb1 said:
I’ve skimmed the posts and I don’t know if this was addressed. I’m a convert so maybe I am getting this wrong.

I was under the impression that both the sacrament of marriage and priesthood were equal in the eyes of God. A married priest could not give his all to both jobs. It can’t be done. Either the priest’s duties will be neglected or his wife and family will. How is a priest going to hear an emergency confession from a dying man when his own wife is in labor? Or fairly make any number of such choices.

The wives of Protestant pastors often view their wifely role as a mission in itself. Their husband’s put their energy into his pastorship and the wives accept this as God’s will. This has always seemed unfair to me. Being a husband is not less important then being a priest or pastor.

So, I hope that our priests remain celebate.
Click to expand...
You bring up good points that echo the mind of St. Paul:

I Cor. 7: 32b-35 The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 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. 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.
 
I was under the impression that both the sacrament of marriage and priesthood were equal in the eyes of God. A married priest could not give his all to both jobs. It can’t be done. Either the priest’s duties will be neglected or his wife and family will. How is a priest going to hear an emergency confession from a dying man when his own wife is in labor? Or fairly make any number of such choices.
Click to expand...
This may be true according to Tradition. However, I do not know the history behind how priestly celibacy was established.

I understand your thought process and I understand why it is preferrable for a priest to remain unmarried (see 1 Cor 7:32-35).

However, I would disagree that a married priest cannot give his all to both jobs. Why? Because in the Bible, when it outlines the qualifications of priests, it allows for marriage. In 1 Timothy 3:2, it says, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…” It follows, then, that God would not qualify priests in a manner that prevented them from effectively ministering to their flock. To say that a married priest “cannot give his all to both jobs” says that God set the priesthood up for failure. This, of course, can’t be true. Also, as far as I know, most of the original apostles were married.

I know that the celibacy of the priesthood is a discipline for us as Catholics. It’s not dogma. However, it’s certainly something I have a hard time understanding in light of the Biblical passages allowing, and possibly even encouraging marriage for the priesthood.
 
llowwelll said:
This may be true according to Tradition. However, I do not know the history behind how priestly celibacy was established.

I understand your thought process and I understand why it is preferrable for a priest to remain unmarried (see 1 Cor 7:32-35).

However, I would disagree that a married priest cannot give his all to both jobs. Why? Because in the Bible, when it outlines the qualifications of priests, it allows for marriage. In 1 Timothy 3:2, it says, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…” It follows, then, that God would not qualify priests in a manner that prevented them from effectively ministering to their flock. To say that a married priest “cannot give his all to both jobs” says that God set the priesthood up for failure. This, of course, can’t be true. Also, as far as I know, most of the original apostles were married.

I know that the celibacy of the priesthood is a discipline for us as Catholics. It’s not dogma. However, it’s certainly something I have a hard time understanding in light of the Biblical passages allowing, and possibly even encouraging marriage for the priesthood.
Click to expand...
In the modern world, it would be very difficult for a priest to commit to both vocations equally. For example, in my Diocese, we rely heavily on missionary priests who travel all over the world.

At my parish, we have one priest from the Philippines, and one from India. Neither of these men could have come to this country as quickly and effortlessly as they did if they had had wives and children - being single and having no more possessions than fit into a couple of suitcases is what made it easy for them to simply arrive and start helping out, without having to wait for luggage and furniture to be shipped out, and waiting to find out which schools their kids can go to, immigration issues with not knowing how long they plan to stay here, etc.
 
llowwelll said:
Todd,

I understand your point. And I agree that it would not be unbiblical to offer preference to unmarried men. However, again, I can’t understand why it’s a prohibition and why, if a priest begins to have trouble with lust, he can’t marry.
Click to expand...
Lust has nothing to do with marriage, We don’t/shouldn’t get married because we lust someone. Also, if you a problem with lust, marrying someone will not fix that problem.
 
llowwelll said:
I’m wondering how we, as Catholics, are able to prohibit priests from marrying in light of this verse. It also makes me wonder how we were able to ban meat on Fridays in the past. Anyone willing to help me understand the Catholic view on this and how to explain it to my Protestant friends?
Click to expand...
We don’t prohibit marriage, in fact you will see weddings perfomed in Catholic Churches on most every Saturday afternoon.

Catholics even consider Marriage to be a Sacrament Ordained by God.

So if your Protestant friends think we prohibit marriage, they are off their rockers.

As far as prohibiting certain individual people from marrying, have them ask their pastor if he\she would marry anyone coming in front of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top