Elder=Priest.?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeckert79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jeckert79

Guest
If an Elder = Priest.in the Catholic Church; please explain this Bible passage I’m confused:

Titus 1:6 I left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the things that were lacking, and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you; 6 if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.7 For the overseer must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-pleasing, not easily angered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for dishonest gain;"

My Q’s:

1.) I’m confused, what’s the point of this passage? How did preists become celibate (if it says they’re suppose to marry)?

2.) Or does this idea just follow the passage in 1st Corinthians regarding marriage and singleness (singleness to better serve God).

Thanks,
Joe
 
jeckert79 said:
If an Elder = Priest.in the Catholic Church; please explain this Bible passage I’m confused:

Titus 1:6 I left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the things that were lacking, and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you; 6 if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.7 For the overseer must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-pleasing, not easily angered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for dishonest gain;"

My Q’s:

1.) I’m confused, what’s the point of this passage? How did preists become celibate (if it says they’re suppose to marry)?

2.) Or does this idea just follow the passage in 1st Corinthians regarding marriage and singleness (singleness to better serve God).
Click to expand...
Paul was insisting that Elders (Priests, they are the same thing) not be polygamous.

He certainly didn’t mean that they had to be married. Otherwise, he would be disqualified, since we know he was single (1 Corinthians 7) and Timothy would almost certainly be disqualified, since he was young (and his wife is never mentioned), and, most importantly, Jesus Christ himself would be disqualified.

The Church has never understood that passage to mean that elders must be married, only that, if they are married, they have only one wife. Not only Paul, but Jesus both taught that if a person can remain single, he should: Paul even emphasizes the benefits for serving God that singleness (for those who can receive it) entails, and expresses his wish that everyone could be single as he is. Both Jesus and Paul seem to teach that the call to be single a higher, better call than the call to be married. Why in the world, in light of this, would Paul insist that elders be married, not single? It just doesn’t make sense.

To my knowledge, it wasn’t until the “Restoration” movement that any Christian group started insisting that their leaders be married.

Jeremy
 
jeckert79 said:
1.) I’m confused, what’s the point of this passage? How did preists become celibate (if it says they’re suppose to marry)?
Click to expand...
The celibacy of the clergy was a practice which developed over time, largely in response to an early-Church valorisation of virginity.
 
My old dictionary (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College Ed., 1986) gives the etymology of the English word **priest **: from Middle English prest, from Old English preost, from Late Latin presbyter, from Greek presbyteros, elder, comparative form of presbys, old, an old man.

Priestly celibacy is a matter of church discipline not doctrine. As far as I know, only the Latin rite of the Catholic Church has this discipline and all the other rites of the Catholic Church allow married priests, as do the Orthodox Churches. Even within the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, in recent years exceptions have been made to the rule and a few married men have been ordained to the priesthood.
 
jemfinch said:
If by “early church” you mean “biblical.”
Click to expand...
Actually, I meant what I said: early ;). When I said ‘development’, I also meant that, as opposed to ‘appearance’.

The period in question quite possibly began in Biblical times, i.e., in the C1st, but its development is most obvious from the C3rd. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the celibacy of the clergy, and then read through some of the apocrypha to the NT, you will see a progressively-greater valorisation of virginity, becoming especially ardent in the Acts of Thomas.
 
jeckert79 said:
If an Elder = Priest.in the Catholic Church; please explain this Bible passage I’m confused:

Titus 1:6 I left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the things that were lacking, and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you; 6 if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.7 For the overseer must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-pleasing, not easily angered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for dishonest gain;"

My Q’s:

1.) I’m confused, what’s the point of this passage? How did preists become celibate (if it says they’re suppose to marry)?

2.) Or does this idea just follow the passage in 1st Corinthians regarding marriage and singleness (singleness to better serve God).

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
There are a number of passages in Scripture NT. which support the idea of Celibacy. It was a developmental doctrine. The Roman Rite made absolutely necessary with a few rare exceptions are or have been allowed. The Eastern rite of which some are in union with Rome still to this day allow for a married man to become priest, however in the Eastern Rite if not married before becoming a priest on must remain celibate. Furthermore in the Eastern Rite a married priest cannont move up to become a Bishop.

Mat. 19,12; are called to celibate life… “**for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.
**

1 Cor. 7, 1-9; …"It is good for a man not to marry. … “I wish that all men were as I am.” Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable
of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to
be aflame with passion” (7:8-9). It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that
Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3); he specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of
command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (7:6-7, emphasis added). Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . 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” (7:27-34). Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).
 
As others have said, this primarily comes directly as a teaching of Jesus and evidenced by Paul reinforcing this teaching which was understood by the Apostles. So starting with Jesus it has been preferable to be unmarried, yet there also has been the ability to be married and a Priest. This is still prevelant today, though it is preferable to be unmarried and the predominating practice since it is more close to an imitation of Jesus.

In Christ
Scylla
 
Mystophilus said:
Actually, I meant what I said: early ;). When I said ‘development’, I also meant that, as opposed to ‘appearance’.
Click to expand...
So, if I understand you correctly, you use the term “development” to emphasize the presence of the “valorisation of virginity” in the Bible? If so, I can handle that – we’re just arguing about degree, now 🙂
The period in question quite possibly began in Biblical times, i.e., in the C1st, but its development is most obvious from the C3rd. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the celibacy of the clergy, and then read through some of the apocrypha to the NT, you will see a progressively-greater valorisation of virginity, becoming especially ardent in the Acts of Thomas.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don’t think there can be much more valorisation of virginity than what was already recorded in the Bible: Jesus statement that those who could become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven should, and Paul’s statement that marriage was for those who lacked self-control and that he would prefer they remain single, so as to focus on God.

What further valorisation is there? I’ll admit I’m less than well-educated on the early Church, but I’m having trouble thinking of stronger statements to be made for virginity.

Jeremy
 
jemfinch said:
To be honest, I don’t think there can be much more valorisation of virginity than what was already recorded in the Bible: Jesus statement that those who could become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven should, and Paul’s statement that marriage was for those who lacked self-control and that he would prefer they remain single, so as to focus on God.

What further valorisation is there? I’ll admit I’m less than well-educated on the early Church, but I’m having trouble thinking of stronger statements to be made for virginity.
Click to expand...
In the Bible texts, as you have mentioned, we see virginity lauded as good practice, and a preferable alternative. In many of the NT apocrypha, it becomes the only proper behaviour, and sexual intercourse even within marriage is denounced.

Therein we see part of the reason for some of these texts being excluded from the canon: the doctrine became excessive. Peter and Paul are thus described as having been martyred not for their faithfulness per se, but rather because they persuaded the wives of Roman nobles to be ‘chaste’, i.e., to cease having sexual relations with their husbands. This was a common thread in many of the apocryphal Acts. John the Beloved is described as being the most beloved apostle because he was the only one who was a virgin. However, my personal favourite, for its bizarre extremity, remains the Gospel of Thomas, which delivers an enthusiastic denunciation of intercourse, and children with it:

"the Lord sat down upon the bed and bade them also sit upon chairs, and began to say unto them:

12 Remember, my children, what my brother spake unto you and what he delivered before you: and know this, that if ye abstain from this foul intercourse, ye become holy temples, pure, being quit of impulses and pains, seen and unseen, and ye will acquire no cares of life or of children, whose end is destruction: and if indeed ye get many children, for their sakes ye become grasping and covetous, stripping orphans and overreaching widows, and by so doing subject yourselves to grievous punishments. For the more part of children become useless oppressed of devils, some openly and some invisibly, for they become either lunatic or half withered or blind or deaf or dumb or paralytic or foolish; and if they be sound, again they will be vain, doing useless or abominable acts, for they will be caught either in adultery or murder or theft or fornication, and by all these vvill ye be afflicted.

But if ye be persuaded and keep your souls chaste before God, there will come unto you living children whom these blemishes touch not, and ye shall be without care, leading a tranquil life without grief or anxiety, looking to receive that incorruptible and true marriage, and ye shall be therein groomsmen entering into that bride-chamber which is full of immortality and light." Acts of Thomas, 11-12
 
Celibacy in the Catholic Church is so easy to understand and explain. For the first 300 or 400 years of the Church, or so, the Church ordained men who were either single or married. This is a fact. After that point the church did not ban priests from marrying. It only ordained men WHO VOWED TO BE CELIBATE. Big difference. What a pretty awesome characteristic in a man who will lead a church or diocese. Someone who gave up his family to follow Jesus, to dedicate his life to the Lord. Gosh, that sounds like something Jesus said, doesn’t it.

I am not a priest. Might there be married men who would make better priests than some of our celibate ones now. Maybe so. Who cares? I think we can make cases the other way around too.

The priesthood is not something we choose. It is something
God calls us too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top