Priests and marrige?

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s because they give into temptations. If he can’t be faithful to one calling why does anyone suppose he’ll be faithful to another when he “feels” called somewhere else?

Sooooo if a man leaves the priesthood because he STILL is called to marriage then its temptation, not a calling. And of course he’ll be faithless to his wife.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I missed none of it, but there’s something about my question that I guess I haven’t made clear.

Where in the New Testament is marriage for a priest/bishop preferred over celibacy? What you quote only says it’s not wrong for him to be a bishop if he’s married. I’m asking: where is marriage encouraged/preferred *over *celibacy?

A little more focus:

unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, …that the husband leave not his wife…Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches. … 20 Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called

The mandate isn’t a preference, it’s a must.

I have heard Latins without number claim that God wouldn’t call a married man, and that is patently false.

 

[latinmasslover]

Sooooo if a man leaves the priesthood because he STILL is called to marriage then its temptation, not a calling. And of course he’ll be faithless to his wife.

If a man won’t remain faithful to the vow he made to God, why exactly do you think he’ll remain faithful to his wife?

 

[latinmasslover]

A little more focus:

unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, …that the husband leave not his wife…Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches. … 20 Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called

The mandate isn’t a preference, it’s a must.

I have heard Latins without number claim that God wouldn’t call a married man, and that is patently false.

That is referring to those who are already married, that he’s not to abandon his family. I’ll specify my question a little more:

Where is marriage encouraged/preferred over celibacy for those not married?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If a man won’t remain faithful to the vow he made to God, why exactly do you think he’ll remain faithful to his wife?

All the more to ordain a man who has remained faithful to his wife, he’s demonstrated he’ll keep it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That is referring to those who are already married, that he’s not to abandon his family. I’ll specify my question a little more:

Where is marriage encouraged/preferred over celibacy for those not married?

Focus futher:

Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches

And in I Timothy, where is the preferrence of celibacy spoken of in the passage on Holy Orders?

 

[havemercy]

Only the married need purification?

I haven’t made that claim, and if anyone were to say something so ridiculous I’d be the first to correct them.

 

[latinmasslover]

Focus futher:

Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches

And in I Timothy, where is the preferrence of celibacy spoken of in the passage on Holy Orders?

I see what you’re trying to say but the Scriptures you quote don’t prove the point you’re trying to make.

“…as the Lord hath distributed…” only means that some are called to celibacy and some are called to marriage. Whichever the Lord is calling you to, follow it. Jesus makes the same point in Matthew 19.

As to 1 Timothy, so what if it’s not preached in that book? It’s said in other places. The beginning of 1 Corinthians 7 you already quoted. The rest:

(27) Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife…(32) But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. (33) **But **he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. (34) And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband…(38) Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better.(39) A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. (40) **But **more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel.

Celibacy was not common among the Jews (or the Gentiles for that matter) so of course the first priests and bishops would be married. The emphasis in the Scriptures is not that they have a wife but that they are holy men who can control their homes. Celibacy is still encouraged over marriage for the priests/bishops. Marriage is recommended for those who are in danger of fornication, for it is better to serve the Lord as a married couple (and future family) than to try to remain celibate but constantly slip into that deadly sin.

This doesn’t mean (and I haven’t been saying) that only holy people remain celibate (If what I said came out sounding that way I apologize). Temptations differ from person to person. I could work in a bar with no problems, but an alcoholic shouldn’t. I could live in a community of nuns with no problem, but a woman with same-sex attraction shouldn’t. My mother could make a vow of abstinence, I couldn’t. I’m not a flirt or slut, but quite frankly, I love men. Most of my friends are men, that’s the way it’s always been, and probably the way it always will be. I don’t think I could handle being celibate; I truly believe that eventually I would cave in. St. Paul would say, “that’s okay dear, marry a holy God-fearing man and raise a holy family.” I can serve God just as perfectly as a celibate could by being obedient to the duties of my state of life. Holiness depends upon our obedience to the will of God. A married man’s responsibility is to his wife and children, the community coming second to his family; not so with the priest, as his first responsibility would be to his church. (Before someone says something, everyone’s primary responsibility is to God, which goes without saying).

 

[Vincent]

Inasmuch as [Priestly celibacy] is a law, it expresses the Church’s will, even before the will of the subject expressed by his readiness.

But the will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and sacred ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of the Church.
**
The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her head and spouse loved her.

** Priestly celibacy, then, is the gift of self *in *and *with *Christ to his Church and expresses the priest’s service to the Church *in *and with the Lord.

Pope John Paul II

​

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Only the married need purification.
{/QUOTE]
I haven’t made that claim, and if anyone were to say something so ridiculous I’d be the first to correct them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Inasmuch as [Priestly celibacy] is a law, it expresses the Church’s will, even before the will of the subject expressed by his readiness.

But the will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and sacred ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of the Church.
**
The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved** by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her head and spouse *loved *her.

** Priestly celibacy, then, is the gift of self *in ***and *with *Christ to his Church and expresses the priest’s service to the Church *in *and *with *the Lord.

Pope John Paul II

​

I’d love to know how his married priests thought of this.

 

[Yerusalyim]

WOW, how did I miss this thread?

First, a few facts. Peter was married and Church tradition (small t) is that he and his wife both died at the Vatican, the wife being crucified before him.

Second, Paul’s marital status is UNKNOWN. He never says one way or another, but here’s a nugget to chew on…Paul studied formally to become a Rabbi (as oppossed to being given the title honorarily as they did with Christ, who did NOT study to become a Rabbi)…one of the requirements to be ordained a Rabbi was to be MARRIED…so, we have three options with Paul, either he never came close to completing his rabbinical studies, he was a widower (this is where I side) or he lived in contenance with his spouse (highly unlikely).

The HISTORY of celibate priests is also interesting…There have always been celibate priests, but it was NOT the norm for a very long time, and not required of the Latin rite for even longer.

I for one believe that married men should be allowed to be ordained along the same model as are uniate brothers and Orthodox brothers.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Inasmuch as [Priestly celibacy] is a law, it expresses the Church’s will, even before the will of the subject expressed by his readiness.

But the will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and sacred ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of the Church.

The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her head and spouse loved her.

Priestly celibacy, then, is the gift of self in and with Christ to his Church and expresses the priest’s service to the Church in and with the Lord.

I’d love to know how his married priests thought of this.

The Pope’s making far too much of it, because the value of celibacy is under attack.
Priests are also forbidden to run businesses. The reason is pretty obvious - if Father sells second hand cars then it is going to cause conflicts with his ministry. However we don’t see anything very deep or meaningful in this rule.

However imagine that there was a political movement - micro-capitalism. It asserted that every man was effectively a business, selling labour or goods to other people. So far so good, but it also asserted that the only thing of any real value was the micro capital of this business. People who didn’t have much micro capital were to be objects of pity. Those who weren’t interested in making as much money as possible were fools.

In that environment, the fact that a priest was forbidden from carrying on business would seem very radical, even subversive. It would spread the idea that there is more to life than how much money you make.

That’s the situation with celibacy. Of itself it isn’t particularly important, and has no real connection with chastity - most prostitutes are celibate, after all, and probably most married Catholics are chaste. But at the present time it is challenge to the values of the world.

 

[Joyousguard]

Some of the teachings of the Church, particularly those of priestly celibacy, are quite beautiful but part of the understanding of theology comes with the actions as well as words.

A celibate clergy is a very valid and legitemate argument backed up with biblical quotes and theological understanding dating back centuries. But what if a celibate clergy and a married clergy exist in one and the same theological understanding?

Is an Eastern rite priest anything less then a Latin rite priest? IS the Latin rite superior to the Eastern Rite? What if both celebant and married were the desired intent?

Jesus chose to associate himself with sinners and saints, tax collectors and the generous. He also chose the married and the single. Why both? Why not just single men? Why not just married men? Why would Christ choose married men and single men as his disciples?

Peter was a married man. Does Christ bestowing upon peter the responsibility of leading his church as the “first pope” (essentially) mean that Christ intended for all ordained men to marry or be married? Not neccessarily. Part of what made Peter the perfect choice was the fact that he was a married man amongst many other things. Christ obviously knew he was married when He called him. But what of the other disciples who were not married? Are they any less then Peter? Peter may have been the leader but did his staus as a married man give or take anything away from his status among the rest of the disciples? Were the single disciples superior then the married ones? Did Christ desire for his priesthood to be married or celibate? Peter was chosen as the leader but the rest were chosen as well.

Not all men are called to the priesthood. Not all men are called to marriage. Even some men who are not ordained and are single are not called to marriage. Are all of these understandings mutual exclusive or inclusive of one another? Christ knew full well that Peter had a wife yet He chose him. Why would Christ do this? Why would He choose a married man to lead His church knowing full well he was married? Why would Christ choose men as His disciples knowing full well that they were not married? Could it be, that it was Christ’s desire to have both married and unmarried clergy? Did Christ understand the strengths and weaknesses of each?

Can a married priest fullfill his vow to his wife and the church? The answer is “yes”. Just as a father can love all of his children equally a father is capable of balancing all that is required of him. While Christ will be before his wife, does that mean he neglects his family? No, the two are able to balanced and I have seen it firsthand in my own upbringing as well as in numerous other households. Just because a father devotes himself to Christ does not mean he can not be a brother or a son as well. While marriage and father hood are demanding, they are able to be balanced with the requirements, obligations and vows of his ordination.

What of the celibate priest? Is he anything lesser than a married priest? Is he anything greater? While it is true that a married priest may not have the freedom of a single priest, a married preist does have a greater understanding of the family life and particulalry marriage. The single priest on the other hand has a greater degree of freedom and mobility and brings to the table many things a married preist can not. However, does that make him any less of a priest. Are married priests superior to unmarried priests? Perhaps the answers lies in the fact that they both are needed and they both are called? Christ called married and unmarried men. Should we really imitate anything different?

 

[dessert]

The fact is that marriage is discouraged for those who choose to devote their lives to serving the Lord; however, there are exceptions.

Try to think of it this way: Priests are to be available to their flock 24/7. Marriage doesn’t benefit the flock, and it wouldn’t benefit the family of the Priest, as a married man has obligations to his wife and children. It’s not fair to the parish, the wife and children, or the Priest. It only makes sense. Keep in mind, exceptions are just that, exceptions, not the norm.

I agree in a way as the priest is first love is the Church but this is the people.

A doctor is similar and has to have a wife that knows this.

I agree it is only exceptions but it is nice to have them available.

A married man can these days be very involved in the Church, the only troble is trying to hold down another job.

Some deacons are married and I don’t think the Church gives them any allowance.
D.

 

[johnnykins]

And St. Peter got his mother in law from where?

Am I to take it you believe that Bishops should marry because Peter was married? The Orthodox don’t allow that. What is their argument for not allowing bishops to marry? Interesting to see you disagree with Orthodox tradition.

 

[johnnykins]

I’d love to know how his married priests thought of this.

He’s dead so I, for one, don’t know. Perhaps someone has other writing expanding on this matter from JPII. I do know that all those who share in the fullness of the priesthood - Bishops - are all celibate like all Orthodox Bishops.

My guess is the Pope was saying celibacy - as demanded for Bishops and supported by Paul and lived by the LORD - is a state that communicates a deep love for the Church. That does not say that there is anything wrong with marriage. I guess that in general the Latin Church has opted for celibacy even for the presbyterate just as is demanded by the Orthodox and Catholics for Bishops in order to further promote and live that love. So maybe his married priests agree with him - noting that Bishops must be celibate - just like the Orthodox demand. Tell me - how do thwe Orthodox justify a celibate episcopacy?

 

[dessert]

I haven’t made that claim, and if anyone were to say something so ridiculous I’d be the first to correct them.

And what would you say, to them? I’m meeting an awfull lot of never married I am a virgin types in the parishes I visit, and they have a holier than thou attitude like they are purer than I. Just because they have never dated or been with a man or woman for 50 years they think that they will have a more purrified place or won’t need any of that or they have kept lust at bay. And they arre not nuns or priests. They have some money but not rich and give to the church. This may just be an attitude on my part, but they are not giving of their time ither.
D.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

He’s dead so I, for one, don’t know. Perhaps someone has other writing expanding on this matter from JPII. I do know that all those who share in the fullness of the priesthood - Bishops - are all celibate like all Orthodox Bishops.

My guess is the Pope was saying celibacy - as demanded for Bishops and supported by Paul and lived by the LORD - is a state that communicates a deep love for the Church. That does not say that there is anything wrong with marriage. I guess that in general the Latin Church has opted for celibacy even for the presbyterate just as is demanded by the Orthodox and Catholics for Bishops in order to further promote and live that love. So maybe his married priests agree with him - noting that Bishops must be celibate - just like the Orthodox demand. Tell me - how do thwe Orthodox justify a celibate episcopacy?

If his priests agreed with him (and they’re not all dead, so they can be asked) why are they priests?

As for the celibate Orthodox episcopacy:

Although the discipline (and it is described as a discipline, and there are those at the level of patriarch who talk about dropping it, although I doubt that will happen) requires a celibate epsicopacy, a good number of the bishops have been married, ie. widowed.

There are a number of reasons why the celibacy rule was put in place, a lot had to do with the fact that the diocese property, etc, is in the bishop’s name, and the question of inheritance. Quite a difference from St. Peter’s day. Also a difference is the numbers. Back in the days of the Apostles the bishop and parish priest were mostly the same (a fact the exposes a lot of historians’ arguments on the existence of the priesthood versus the epsicopacy as silly), a married bishop wasn’t as big a problem. As the dioceses expanded, and the bishop appointed priests (in Orthodoxy the bishop is the icon of Christ, the priest is the delegate of the bishop), parishes which the bishop had to travel around to visit, etc, with obvious disruption of family life, the rule became a pressing issue. And St. Paul’s writing on the benefits of celibacy also played a part.

 

[johnnykins]

If his priests agreed with him (and they’re not all dead, so they can be asked) why are they priests?

As for the celibate Orthodox episcopacy:

Although the discipline (and it is described as a discipline, and there are those at the level of patriarch who talk about dropping it, although I doubt that will happen) requires a celibate epsicopacy, a good number of the bishops have been married, ie. widowed.

Sounds just like the Catholic position. So we are in agreement.

There are a number of reasons why the celibacy rule was put in place, a lot had to do with the fact that the diocese property, etc, is in the bishop’s name, and the question of inheritance. Quite a difference from St. Peter’s day. Also a difference is the numbers. Back in the days of the Apostles the bishop and parish priest were mostly the same (a fact the exposes a lot of historians’ arguments on the existence of the priesthood versus the epsicopacy as silly), a married bishop wasn’t as big a problem. As the dioceses expanded, and the bishop appointed priests (in Orthodoxy the bishop is the icon of Christ, the priest is the delegate of the bishop), parishes which the bishop had to travel around to visit, etc, with obvious disruption of family life, the rule became a pressing issue. And St. Paul’s writing on the benefits of celibacy also played a part.

Again can agree with it all. So there is no difference. Good to know.