Celibacy unbiblical?

[Randy_Carson]

I meant too long to post. ~9,000 characters and a limit of 6,000.

Ah. My apologies…I misunderstood what you wrote.

I read long stuff all the time, please enlighten me.

Citation for Paul saying he is a deacon?

Paul, an apostle, occasionally described himself as a *diakonos *(2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7), meaning simply a minister.

Peter still being married: "St Clement of Alexandria:They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, ‘Remember the Lord’. Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them. Thus also the Apostle says, ‘That he who marries should be as though he married not’, and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord. [p.541, Book 7, The Stromata, Clement of Alexandria, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2] "

Thank you! This answers a question I have wondered about.

However, it doesn’t really suggest that marriage is REQUIRED…only that Peter was STILL married and not a widower.

 

[Seraphim73]

Ok so here’s your logic…

Apostles = Don’t have to be married

Bishops = Do have to be married

Priests = Undefined

Lay people = Better if unmarried

I’m sorry but that’s completely non-nonsensical. You can’t take one verse in isolation and build and entire teaching around it. Your entire premise and approach is flawed and it leads to a typically flawed result.

 

[SPH1]

Also, the passage from Timothy seems pretty clear on the requirements for a bishop, and they include married (1 Timothy 3:2) and having kids (verse 4). Also Titus 1:6 (on Priests).

“He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.” 1 Cor. 7:32-33.

So let us get this straight. Your interpretation is that the clergy is EXCLUSIVELY for married men with kids who serve the world rather than the Lord; while unmarried men who serve the Lord are EXCLUDED from the clergy. Is this correct?

Considering that the Order of Widows also has similar requirements to Timothy (married once) and they currently have no husband … hence, widows … perhaps you have more thinking to do.

To the OP: This married/unmarried clergy bit you read about is one of a long list of anti-Catholic gimmick verses used by wolves to seduce Catholic sheep from the flock. Many are answered to here at Catholic Answers.

Anyway, my view is that scripture clearly PREFERS and unmarried clergy. And why would we in the pews want someone serving the world rather than the Lord?

(NOTE: Yes, I know. Someone will counter that there are plenty of Protestant and some Catholic married clergy who truly serve the Lord; and many unmarried clergy that seemingly do not. However, per 1 Cor 7:32-33, scripture still prefers an unmarried clergy.)

 

[SPH1]

About Peter/the apostles being married. Even so, we have Gospel testimony from Peter himself that they left everything to follow Christ: “Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” Matt 19:27.

As for Paul and the ability of marrying a believing wife like the other apostles, the most interesting material I read was something by Art Sippo suggesting that this really meant that Paul did not have women tending to him, as did some Apostles and Christ himself. Basically, a sugar momma. Paul took care of himself. Kind of out there, but interesting.

Again, we have Peter’s Gospel testimony that he and the Apostles left everything to follow Christ. So their “marriages” were radically changed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul was ordaining people because he was an apostle. Show me where he claims to be a bishop and I will stand corrected. Likewise, Christ never claimed to be a bishop.

Tim Staples sez:

The Catholic Church welcomes Jesus not just as a bishop but as the bishop, as I Peter 2:25 says:

For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB).

The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls. Jesus is the bishop of the Catholic Church. And he was and is celibate.​

Staples goes on to say:

There are a few more points we should consider when answering this point…

1. Even the Evangelical scripture scholar Dr. Ralph Earle, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, says that St. Paul in 1 Timothy 3 is not requiring bishops to be married. In stating his reasons, he first offers the most ancient position—which we know as Catholics to be apostolic in origin and found in written form in the late second century—that would say this text is placing a limitation on the number of marriages a bishop could have in his lifetime. He could only have been married once. This is the position of the Catholic Church today. If a man has been married more than once, even if licitly, he cannot be admitted to the episcopacy.
2. Earle writes, “[M]ost commentators agree that [the text] means monogamy—only one wife at one time.” This interpretation is unlikely for reasons we’ll mention below, but we should first take note that both Catholic and Protestant scholars generally agree St. Paul is not making marriage a requirement for the bishopric.
3. In that same Bible commentary, this time commenting on Titus 1:6, which makes to both elders and bishops the same prohibition against multiple marriages, another Evangelical scholar, Dr. D. Edmond Hiebert, adds, “If Paul had meant that the elder must be married, the reading would have been ‘a’ not ‘one’ wife.” I would go further and say it would most likely simply say, “The bishop must be married.” The term one indicates that he is limiting the number, not mandating marriage.

For those who would be inclined to argue the position that St. Paul is simply prohibiting polygamy to the clergy, I would add these five points:

1. The lists of disqualifications to the ministry in both Timothy and Titus were not consisting of things that would exclude a person from being a Christian at all, like polygamy would. They were things that would ensure the candidate in question was living an exemplary Christian life. Illicit “marital” situations were condemned at the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49 and declared to be deal-breakers for one to be a Christian at all (see Acts 15:1-3; 24-28). Though polygamy is not mentioned there verbatim, it would certainly be condemned implicitly in the condemnation of illicit conjugal situations.
2. There was not a single place in the Greco-Roman world where polygamy was being practiced in the first century A.D. It is unlikely St. Paul would speak of something directly like this that was simply not a problem at the time.
3. In the case of St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he would go on to declare that a widow who was “enrolled,” or consecrated, as a celibate and married again to have sinned gravely. There is nothing wrong with a widow remarrying. That is licit and clearly so elsewhere in Scripture, specifically in St. Paul’s own writings (see Romans 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:27-28, 39-40). But it is wrong for the one who has been consecrated for service in the Church. It is interesting that St. Paul uses the same language of limiting the widow to having been the wife “of one husband.” Obviously this was not meant to say “one husband at a time”:

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband. . . . But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (I Tim. 5:9-12).

It is more than fitting that those consecrated as bishops, elders, and deacons would make a similar commitment.

1. St. Paul’s repeated recommendations to all to remain celibate, remain single after having lost a spouse (I Cor. 7:1; 7-8; 25-28; 32-35; 38; 39-40), or even to live a celibate life within marriage (I Cor. 7:29), are consistent with his prohibition to remarriage to those called to holy orders. St. Paul seems to speak a great deal about second marriages but never about polygamy.
2. I find it interesting that the Protestant New International Version of the Bible translates I Tim. 3:2, “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife.” While I do not necessarily agree with translating the text with the “but” in there, there is no doubt where the Protestant translators of the NIV stand on the question. St. Paul is limiting the candidate for the bishopric to “but” one wife.

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/must-bishops-be-the-husband-of-one-wife

 

[Cathoholic]

TxGodfollower. You said:

If Christ wanted single Bishops, why did he choose Peter who was clearly married?

St. Peter WAS “clearly married”.

But your point about St. Peter would not disqualify single men (incidentally, St. Peter MAY have been widowed when he became an Apostle). There are no verses about St. Peter’s children either.

St. Peter also tells Jesus he (and the other Apostles) have “left everything”!

MATTHEW 19:27 27 Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?”

LUKE 18: 28-30 28 And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Surely you are not advocating Bishops were supposed to get married only so they could then leave their wives and children??

This is part of the reason WHY Bishops (and others) are called to this celibate lifestyle. So they wouldn’t have a family to leave or have his “interests divided” (1st Cor. 7:34) and be concerned “about the affairs of this world”.

This is the kind of potential non-sense people get themselves into when they go off by themselves and follow after traditions of men.

We are NOT Lone Rangers (see Lone Ranger here).

According to your reasoning even the Prophet Jeremiah would be disqualified from the Bishopric if he lived in the era of Christ (yet see Jeremiah 16:1-2 for this leadership mandate from God [which admittedly is not an Episcopal office]).

Why not just follow the teachings of the Church instead of re-inventing religion every generation with a “me and my Bible” motif?

You also said:

Show me where Paul claimed to be a bishop.

But I never said St. Paul CLAIMED to be a Bishop. WHY not?

Because it is evident he is functioning as a Bishop. He doesn’t need to CLAIM this. He is laying his hands on men ordaining them, teaching with infallible authority, attending an Apostolic Council (Acts 15), sending out men, and founding Churches.

These are Bishop functions. If you don’t want to affirm that, you will just have to not affirm that.

These functions are Episcopal (Bishop) in nature and the Catholic Church has always asserted as such. So does the Eastern Orthodox Churches for that matter.

You also said:

Any dictionary will tell you what ‘Must’ means; its a requirement, not a maybe.

But I am not arguing what “must” means.

I already told you the Historic Church has taught . . . . for married men, they MUST have only ONE wife. Not a second wife (even for licit reasons such as after your first wife dies).

This is the only context that the “must” COULD be in when you take the rest of Sacred Scripture into consideration (which you apparently are not doing here).

You also said:

The passages in Revelation and Matthew aren’t directed at bishops, neither is the verse in 1st Corinthians.

But I didn’t say these verses were explicitly “directed at Bishops”.

I asked you if the men described in Revelation 14 would be disqualified from the Bishopric despite them “following the lamb wherever” the Lamb (Jesus) goes and living a life in imitation of Jesus.

With your reasoning, you would have to say these men (“elders”/“Priests”/“Presbyteroi”) who imitate Jesus and follow Jesus wherever He goes, . . . . would NOT be qualified for the Bishopric!

I alluded to St. Paul in 1st Corinthians calling the virginal life as the better way.

I pointed out that according to Jesus, the virginal life is Heavenly (in Heaven people will not be given in marriage—Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25).

I asked if following this Heavenly paradigm would be a disqualifier for the Bishopric?

And I am still waiting for the explicit answer from you.

You said:

Paul was ordaining people because he was an apostle.

You understand Judas was an Apostle too don’t you. Yet Judas is explicitly described as having a Bishopric by St. Peter in Acts 1:20 too.

Are you going to try to tell me Judas had a “Bishopric” but NOT the faithful Apostles?

You can have BOTH. Judas had BOTH.

When a guy gets a Bachelors degree in accounting, then later gets his MBA, it doesn’t negate his bachelors degree because he now has a Masters in Business Administration.

In like manner, an “Apostle” still functions as a Bishop. If this were true for Judas, how much more true would that be for the faithful Apostles?

 

[pablope]

I meant too long to post. ~9,000 characters and a limit of 6,000.

I read long stuff all the time, please enlighten me.

Citation for Paul saying he is a deacon?

Peter still being married: "St Clement of Alexandria:They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, ‘Remember the Lord’. Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them. Thus also the Apostle says, ‘That he who marries should be as though he married not’, and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord. [p.541, Book 7, The Stromata, Clement of Alexandria, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2] "

Here, you may want to read this…a convert who was a marrie episcopal priest, was later ordained to the Cathoic priesthood, and hopefully, this will clear up for you some of your common misunderstanding regarding the passages cited:

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

The Gift: A Married Priest Looks at Celibacy
by Fr. Ray Ryland

Excerpts:

First, the historical error: People commonly believe that the Church mandated celibacy for her priests beginning in the fourth century or the twelfth century or somewhere in between. The fact is, priestly celibacy is an apostolic institution. 1

The connection of celibacy with priesthood was first revealed in Christ. We see that in its perfect embodiment, priesthood involves remaining free from all claims of marriage and parenthood. That freedom enabled God’s Son to be completely available for the working of the Father’s perfect will through Him (Cf. Jn 4:34).

When He called His successors, the apostles, “they left everything and followed him” (Lk 5:11). Later, Peter reminded Jesus, “We have left everything and followed you.” Then he asked, with typical candor, “What then will we have?” (Mt 19:27). Jesus replied, “There is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come” (Lk 19:29, emphasis added). Recall also that when Jesus taught the indissolubility of marriage, He also highly commended celibacy (Mt 19:12). And Paul himself strongly endorsed celibacy for more effective service to the Lord.

Some of the married clergy tried to defend their continuing conjugal life, but there was no tradition of optional celibacy to which they could appeal. They pointed rather to 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6, and 1 Timothy 3:12, which specified that bishops, priests, and deacons must have been “married only once” (must be unius uxoris vir , “husband of one wife”). In response, Pope Siricius declared that “married only once” does not mean that after their ordination married clergy could continue conjugal relations with their wives. The true meaning is this: A man faithful to one wife could be expected to be mature enough to live the perpetual continence required of him and his wife after his ordination.

this is the original magisterial exegesis of these passages. Further, Pope Siricius’s teaching finds clear echoes in the writings of the Fathers of this era: Ambrose, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Ambrosiaster. 6

Another passage used to buttress the apostolic case for optional celibacy is 1 Corinthians 9:5. Referring to his prerogatives as an apostle, Paul asks (seemingly rhetorically), “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” The Greek behind “believing wife” in this translation is “a sister wife” or “a sister as wife.” The words together do not mean “wife” in the ordinary sense. In the early centuries the term “sister” (as in 1 Corinthians 9:5) was used to designate a wife of a clergyman who with her had vowed perpetual continence before his ordination. Their relation was that of brother and sister.

So the priestly ministry has a “strictly charismatic character,” in the words of Benedict XVI. The Church emphasizes that fact by “linking . . . priesthood with virginity, which clearly can be understood only as a personal charism, never simply as an official qualification.” Any attempt to separate priesthood from celibacy (“the demand for their uncoupling”) would in effect deny the charismatic nature of priesthood. It would reduce it to an office completely under the control of the institution. Thus the Church in effect would be regarded as a purely human institution. 12

 

[pablope]

A Jehovah’s Witness sent me this. If the apostles have a “right to marry”, then how can the Church prohibit bishops and priests from exercising that right? How can they prohibit what God has allowed? Thanks

Celibacy of the clergy

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (Priestly Celibacy, 1967), endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy, but he admitted that “the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles . . . does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers . . . Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities.”—The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981 (Falls Church, Va.; 1981), p. 204.

1 Cor. 9:5, NAB: “Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (“Cephas” is an Aramaic name given to Peter; see John 1:42. See also Mark 1:29-31, where reference is made to the mother-in-law of Simon, or Peter.)

1 Tim. 3:2, Dy: “It behoveth, therefore, a bishop to be . . . the husband of one wife “married only once,” NAB].”

Before the Christian era, Buddhism required its priests and monks to be celibate. (History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, London, 1932, fourth ed., revised, Henry C. Lea, p. 6) Even earlier, the higher orders of the Babylonian priesthood were required to practice celibacy, according to The Two Babylons by A. Hislop.—(New York, 1943), p. 219.

1 Tim. 4:1-3, JB: “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times there will be some who will desert the faith and choose to listen to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from the devils; . . . they will say marriage is forbidden.”

See post 27:

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

I would quote this for your friend:

ere we follow Benedict XVI’s teaching. The Church is both human and divine, a duality of structure (organization) and the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. That which gives the Church her permanency of structure is itself a sacrament—the sacrament of orders. This means that the Church’s structure is continuously created by God’s unfailing action through the sacrament. The Church as an institution cannot herself choose those who will serve in the hierarchy. The call to holy orders comes from God, and the Church can only recognize that call. Thus our Lord commanded us, “Pray the Lord of the harvest to send workers into his harvest” (Mt 9:37).

So the priestly ministry has a “strictly charismatic character,” in the words of Benedict XVI. The Church emphasizes that fact by “linking . . . priesthood with virginity, which clearly can be understood only as a personal charism, never simply as an official qualification.” Any attempt to separate priesthood from celibacy (“the demand for their uncoupling”) would in effect deny the charismatic nature of priesthood. It would reduce it to an office completely under the control of the institution. Thus the Church in effect would be regarded as a purely human institution. 12

The Synod of Bishops in 1990 issued what is perhaps the ultimate statement of modern times on the Church’s commitment to priestly celibacy. “The synod would like to see celibacy presented and explained in the fullness of its biblical, theological and spiritual richness, as a precious gift given by God to his Church and as a sign of the kingdom which is not of this world—a sign of God’s love for this world and of the undivided love of the priest for God and for God’s people , with the result that celibacy is seen as a positive enrichment of the priesthood” (emphases added).

 

[pablope]

Post too long, had to split

Show me where Paul claimed to be a bishop.

 

[Seraphim73]

I think TxGodfollower would be on better ground if they argued that it’s not appropriate for the Catholic Church to require celibacy. But to argue that Scripture requires a bishop to be married is simply unsupportable.

 

[pablope]

A Jehovah’s Witness sent me this. If the apostles have a “right to marry”, then how can the Church prohibit bishops and priests from exercising that right? How can they prohibit what God has allowed? Thanks

Celibacy of the clergy

Before the Christian era, Buddhism required its priests and monks to be celibate. (History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, London, 1932, fourth ed., revised, Henry C. Lea, p. 6) Even earlier, the higher orders of the Babylonian priesthood were required to practice celibacy, according to The Two Babylons by A. Hislop.—(New York, 1943), p. 219.

.”

I just noticed this that your friend uses Hislop’s book as a source. Hislop’s book is unreliable…as this protestant found out:

equip.org/PDF/DC187.pdf

While the Roman Catholic Church was the primary target of this criticism, it seemed the customs and beliefs with which pagan parallels could be found had also contaminated other churches. Much of what I encountered was based on a book called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1807–1862)…Over the years The Two Babylons has i mpacted the thinking of many people, ranging all the way from those in radical cults (e.g., the Jehovah’s Witnesses) to very dedicated Christians who hunger for a move by God but are concerned about anything that might quench His Spirit…As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian. I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out. As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s “history” was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths.

Also:

On this part of your post:

Celibacy of the clergy

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (Priestly Celibacy, 1967), endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy, but he admitted that “the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles . . . does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers . . . Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities.”—The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981 (Falls Church, Va.; 1981), p. 204.

Here we can find an example of how The Watchtower quotes certain statements to suit their purpose. They left out this statement of Pope Paul VI in the second ellipsis: “[The New Testament does not openly demand] but proposes it rather as a free act of obedience to a special vocation or to a special spiritual gift”. That is exactly the case. The Watchtower counts on the ignorance of the reader, for the Eastern Catholic Churches have married priests. Even in the Latin Church, some are married legitimately. We won’t go into the many verses one could cite in support of celibacy (see 1 Corinthians 7, for example), but it suffices to say that it was widely received from the earliest days.

answeringprotestants.com/category/denominations/jehovahs-witnesses-denominations/

 

[thegreypiper]

You might also point out that this is a rather flexible rule, and it is in fact only imposed on the Latin Rite. Eastern Rite Catholics, such as the Maronite and Melkite Churches, do in fact permit a married clergy (following Byzantine discipline*, as do the Orthodox churches). Also, men who recognized as being in proper holy orders and married, from other churches, are allowed to convert to Catholicism, stay married (of course!) and still be accepted as Catholic priests, although I understand such are usually not assigned pastorally to parishes. This is all called a question of discipline, rather than doctrine. Besides, ask them if they would really prefer a system where the Papacy had become a family line, like any secular monarchy! (Which is why celibacy was imposed to begin with, btw.)

• It ends up a somewhat two-tiered system, as some priests choose to serve as celibate, and these are the ones who usually ascend the hierarchy as bishops & such.

 

[Gorgias]

Also, men who recognized as being in proper holy orders and married, from other churches, are allowed to convert to Catholicism, stay married (of course!) and still be accepted as Catholic priests, although I understand such are usually not assigned pastorally to parishes.

Piper,

A few things to note: first, I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to when you write “from other churches” and “in proper holy orders”. Somehow, I think that you’re thinking about (for instance) Anglican or other Reformation-community pastors; these aren’t “in proper holy orders” or are “from other churches” (but rather, are in particular ecclesial communities). Is this what you’re trying to say, or are you thinking of those who are validly ordained priests in other churches (for example, Orthodox priests)?

For those who are coming into full communion with the Catholic Church, after having been members of a Reformation community, they were not “in proper holy orders.” Moreover, the decision whether to admit them to orders isn’t a rubber stamp, but rather, is made on a case-by-case basis…

 

[Church_Militant]

I mean, even those who are into Sola Scriptura should be able to see the error of this assertion. Note the following scriptures…
*Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

Revelation 14:1-5
1: Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2: And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps, 3: and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. 4: It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5: and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.
*

 

[Seraphim73]

I mean, even those who are into Sola Scriptura should be able to see the error of this assertion. Note the following scriptures…
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

Revelation 14:1-5
1: Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2: And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps, 3: and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. 4: It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5: and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

Yes that is exactly the point. You can’t take one verse in complete isolation. You have to look at it through the totality of the Scriptures.

 

[Church_Militant]

1st Corinthians 9:5 "5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Paul certainly had the right…but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help your case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were married… this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scriptural reasons for celibate clergy regardless of the change that the Reformers brought about in the 1500’s because some of them couldn’t hack it… This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

1st Timothy 3:2-12 (dropped verse 1 as self evident)***
“2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? 6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime. ***11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes that is exactly the point. You can’t take one verse in complete isolation. You have to look at it through the totality of the Scriptures.

Well said! Thank you! (Awesome name by you BTW! A fiery angel!)

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers…this still does NOT negate Christ’s own call to celibacy in the passages I cited earlier…Nor St.Paul’s own statement to that effect that I also cited.

If Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn’t made these statements, then we’d have nothing to discuss…but some people’s flat refusal to even acknowledge that my cited passages exist and that they are indeed scriptural mandates and guidelines (at least) is just “cherry picking”. I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married…we have some married priests today and that is fine…

Titus 1:6 "6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly"
Same as above…

1st Timothy 4:1-3 "1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

My only point gentlemen, is that it is not (as alleged) “unBiblical” as I hope is apparent from my posts.

 

[Seraphim73]

Well said! Thank you! (Awesome name by you BTW! A fiery angel!)

Thank you. I may be fiery sometimes but I’m not much of an angel.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank you. I may be fiery sometimes but I’m not much of an angel.

Me and you both brother…me and you both.