No. St. Paul is not writing in a time when religious orders (bound to vows such as celibacy etc.) existed.Here st Paul says not to allow young widows into the convent for fear of breaking their pledge with God and thus bringing condemnation to them. Does this mean that if a nun or priest decides he/she wants to marry instead that they are condemned?
This is not necessarily true. Jewish Targums and Rabbinic commentary understand the “affliction” of Numbers 30 as referring to vows of celibacy, which is what Paul could be alluding to in this passage.No. St. Paul is not writing in a time when religious orders (bound to vows such as celibacy etc.) existed.
As NHInsider pointed out, if someone makes a promise to God, and then breaks it, then they bring condemnation on them self.Here st Paul says not to allow young widows into the convent for fear of breaking their pledge with God and thus bringing condemnation to them. Does this mean that if a nun or priest decides he/she wants to marry instead that they are condemned?
This part of 1 Timothy is where Paul is writing about the organization of the church. At this time there had been some poor leaders within the church and Paul is writing Timothy about how to fix the problem.Here st Paul says not to allow young widows into the convent for fear of breaking their pledge with God and thus bringing condemnation to them. Does this mean that if a nun or priest decides he/she wants to marry instead that they are condemned?
Sorry if I was unclear, I was referring to Christianity, not Judaism or other religions or philosophies.This is not necessarily true. Jewish Targums and Rabbinic commentary understand the “affliction” of Numbers 30 as referring to vows of celibacy, which is what Paul could be alluding to in this passage.
This may be an oversimplification, since many of our customs as Christians (including head coverings, which Paul endorses, or fulfillments of Jewish feasts such as the Tamid, Passover, etc) have their roots in Judaism. There is no reason to assume that disciplines such as celibacy vows ceased with the advent of Christ. For an example of this, Levitical priests offering sacrifice for their month had to remain celibate. This same concept is found in our priests today, who are perpetually celibate due to their daily offering of sacrifice. The original basis for such disciplines has not changed, and so are not disposed of. Your interpretation of a seemingly rather clear statement by Paul seems to rest on the assumption that Paul could not have meant that because no such vows existed. Perhaps you could provide a reference for your statement?Sorry if I was unclear, I was referring to Christianity, not Judaism or other religions or philosophies.
Paul was writing to Christians, not Jews. Whatever Jews may have been practicing at this time (with reference to the Targums and Rabbinic teaching) is beside the point.
Celibacy refers to being married or not (which Levitical priests were not bound to).This may be an oversimplification, since many of our customs as Christians (including head coverings, which Paul endorses, or fulfillments of Jewish feasts such as the Tamid, Passover, etc) have their roots in Judaism. There is no reason to assume that disciplines such as celibacy vows ceased with the advent of Christ. For an example of this, Levitical priests offering sacrifice for their month had to remain celibate. This same concept is found in our priests today, who are perpetually celibate due to their daily offering of sacrifice. The original basis for such disciplines has not changed, and so are not disposed of. Your interpretation of a seemingly rather clear statement by Paul seems to rest on the assumption that Paul could not have meant that because no such vows existed. Perhaps you could provide a reference for your statement?
Thank you for keeping me to the correct terminology. It doesn’t really change the core of the argument, however, which is the practice itself. Priestly continence due to a one month offering of sacrifice would naturally translate to a perpetual state of continence or celibacy for a priesthood that perpetually offered sacrifice, which is the case of our priesthood. This practice has it’s roots in Judaism.Celibacy refers to being married or not (which Levitical priests were not bound to).
Continence refers to abstaining from sexual relations or not (which Levitical priests in Judaism were bound to according to their liturgical law).
Paul endorsed head coverings? Yes, in one particular context, not as any universal and timeless Christian rule.
Not for Catholics. Eastern Catholics (and in some instances, Roman/Latin Catholics) allow marries priests and do not require perpetual continence. This is a simple fact.Priestly continence due to a one month offering of sacrifice would naturally translate to a perpetual state of continence or celibacy for a priesthood that perpetually offered sacrifice, which is the case of our priesthood.
I don’t think I understand…are you saying that the Catholic Church adheres literally and strictly to this one passage from a letter of Paul? Sorry if I misunderstand your point, but from what I read, you seem to be saying the headcoverings are essential to the Catholic faith? Please clarify. Thank you.As for Paul only endorsing head coverings within in a particular context, I would disagree. Catholics debate about the necessity of headcoverings, but whether you view them as a custom or a necessity, Paul’s endorsement of them is not based on as narrow a context as it seems you would argue, since his rationale behind them goes back to creation itself. It is a custom that goes back to, again, Judaism. Considering that headcoverings have been around for 2,000 years, I find this a peculiar argument to make.
This is not so.Here (1 Tim 5:11,12) st Paul says not to allow young widows into the convent for fear of breaking their pledge with God and thus bringing condemnation to them. Does this mean that if a nun or priest decides he/she wants to marry instead that they are condemned?
Not completely true. At the time of Pauls writting the lines between being Christian and beign Jewish were often entertwined. Moat all of our chirstian pratices grew out of the jewish faith. So the practice of Targums and Rabbinic teaching relivent to the subject.Sorry if I was unclear, I was referring to Christianity, not Judaism or other religions or philosophies.
Paul was writing to Christians, not Jews. Whatever Jews may have been practicing at this time (with reference to the Targums and Rabbinic teaching) is beside the point.
Free from the coviction of the law. You still have the law. I mean do being free from the law mean it was now ok to kill?One…
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
But were Targums not more recent than Paul?
Also was it not a fundamental idea of Paul that his followers were free of the law?
No, I am not, I apologize if I was unclear. Headcoverings are a custom, and Paul seems to allude to the fact that it is not a custom necessarily used by all the Churches. However, Paul’s personal endorsement of them is not based on cultural grounds, but rather he makes his appeal to the order of creation. This is why I think that it is a bit premature to brush Paul’s reference to headcoverings aside as referring to a specific context.I don’t think I understand…are you saying that the Catholic Church adheres literally and strictly to this one passage from a letter of Paul? Sorry if I misunderstand your point, but from what I read, you seem to be saying the headcoverings are essential to the Catholic faith? Please clarify. Thank you.
That does not address the point, which is that many of our customs and disciplines arise out of Judaism. Also, Numbers 30 and the Targums speak of vows of widows, and there does seem to be reference by Paul to an “order of widows,” as some scholars have referred to it. Regardless of whether Eastern Rite Catholics practice our vow of celibacy for the priesthood, this does not negate the Jewish roots and theological rationale behind the normative perpetual celibacy of the Latin rite. It is worth noting that Eastern rite priests may become ordained if already married, but may not remarry or become married after being ordained or the death of a spouse. This is comparable to the possibility of the apostles having been married, and yet there is no evidence to suggest that they sought out marriage after their ordination. If this marital reality of the apostles nevertheless did not negate the Judaic roots of celibacy or continence when offering sacrifice, there is good reason to see the parallels today. Whether it is binding as dogma is not the issue. The issue is the root of the practice.Not for Catholics. Eastern Catholics (and in some instances, Roman/Latin Catholics) allow marries priests and do not require perpetual continence. This is a simple fact.