Trying to convert - I don't get it

[jcrichton]

Yes. Peter was married.

Hi!

…yeah, but he was a very poor husband… not even his wife’s name was included in Scriptures… it seems that he just didn’t care for the ole ball & chain–the second Jesus said: “you, follow, Me!” Simon took off!

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Jesus talked about being a eunich for God… didn’t he? Would that be the single life? But like someone said, it’s a gift… a calling. Just as married life is a gift, a calling. Neither is easy…

Hi!

…it is interesting how those who have a problem with Catholic celibacy have no problems with Jesus when He Himself states that there are those who make themselves eunuchs to Serve God–so how is Jesus’ Revelation not anti-Scriptural (as Markie claims)?

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PaulfromIowa]

1 Tim 3:2-5 that says a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and even have children.

St. Paul does not mean that a bishop must be married and have children; only that he must have no more than one wife. We know that St. Paul actually recommends celibacy strongly.

 

[Bookcat]

I would like to see that Roman Catholicism is true, it would be so nice to convert with my heart.

But this AM I read two passages, 1 Tim 3:2-5 that says a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and even have children.

Then 1 Tim 4:1-3 that says it would be to depart from the faith to forbid marriage.

I know the difference between doctrine and discipline - by why would you ever, ever have a discipline that went AGAINST scripture?

1. Better to use the term “Catholic Church” (the Church is more than the Roman).
2. Paul is setting a limit on number of marriages - he is setting what? A discipline (in his day and area) that they cannot remarry after their wifes death…only one marriage. And what about the Children - he is not saying they must have children but their Children be raised well…not unruly kids.

3.Paul is taking about those who would forbid Marriage --such as seeing it to be evil. The Church does not forbid marriage. Celebacy is not about forbidding marriage as an evil. It is about putting into discipline what Paul himself recommended (to be as he…not married).

Such is the current discipline for most Priests in the Roman Church -but not all. And such was not always a universal discipline in the west. And such is not the discipline in a number of Churches within the Catholic Church.

1. The Discipline of the west - does not go against Scripture - anymore than the Discipline of St. Paul about his Bishops being married only once…go against what Jesus taught when discussing marriage with the Pharisees about being able to marry again if ones spouse died…or the reality that one is permitted to remarry if ones spouse dies. It is a discipline that is freely chosen by those who choose that vocation.
2. Forbidding marriage means - no one marries. Marriage is bad. The Church teaches that Marriage is good and holy. A Sacrament.
3. Now…come on in! I did so many years ago…here in is the truth. Here in is Christ and the fullness of what he gave us…In Christ and thus in his Church is* true life.*

 

[Mintaka]

There are no traditions I know of, that say that St. Timothy ever married.

It was regarded as one of the few advantages of picking a young guy to be your bishop, actually – people might find it easy to disregard his authority, but he was unlikely to have a wife and kids to complicate matters. (And you couldn’t have sex the night before you said Mass, so being a bishop’s wife meant sexual abstinence alllllll the time.)

But anyway… St. Paul’s expression “a man of one wife” was playing off a much more common expression in the pagan Roman world, “a woman of one husband” or “a woman of one man.” Assuming you weren’t picked to be a Vestal Virgin, being an “univira” was the ultimate expression of female Roman virtue.

Even though it was extremely uncommon in St. Paul’s day to see women with extended families allowed to remain widows, it was still regarded as virtuous to stick to the husband you used to have. Christian widows usually seem to have been univirae. (Although a woman widowed while still quite young, or with very young kids, was usually encouraged to remarry. Young pretty widows were seen as a potential source of scandal and temptation in the early Christian community, unless they were very very careful not to be seen out and about having fun, or having lots of parties at home.)

The early Church was very definite that it was more religious to be a male or female virgin; but barring that, it was much better to be a “man of one wife” or a “woman of one husband” than to remarry after your spouse’s death. Many early Christian writers seem to have regarded any remarriage by anybody as practically adultery. A Christian remarrying more than once was seen as pretty creepy, and such a marriage was often outright forbidden unless you were remarrying for the sake of young kids. (And of course, any remarriage after civil divorce was Right Out.)

So saying that a bishop had to be at least a “man of one wife” was basically saying that he had to be a man of good moral character and reliable steadiness, as opposed to a guy who had to be married to somebody, anybody, rather than burn. (Especially important, since being a bishop meant abstaining from sex alllll the time, if you were saying Mass every day. And you usually were.)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

1 Tim 3:2-5 that says a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and even have children.

The text does not say he must have children, but rather it says if there are children they must be behaved (or it will make him look bad).

The text also does not say he must be married, but rather it says he can only have been married once, at most. Look at what Paul says about widows in the next chapter: “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband” (1 Tim 5:9). A widow was, by definition, a married woman. So why does Paul say she must be the wife of “one husband”? Not because she had to have been married, but because she could not get remarried if she is getting Church welfare. The “wife of one husband” means if the first husband died, then don’t take a second husband. Similarly, when a Bishop must be the “husband of one wife,” Paul is saying if the man was widowed he cannot have entered into a second marriage.

 

[SJacob7]

I would like to see that Roman Catholicism is true, it would be so nice to convert with my heart.

But this AM I read two passages, 1 Tim 3:2-5 that says a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and even have children.

Then 1 Tim 4:1-3 that says it would be to depart from the faith to forbid marriage.

I know the difference between doctrine and discipline - by why would you ever, ever have a discipline that went AGAINST scripture?

And then you have this passage from St Paul:

1 Corinthians 9:5 (NASB)

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Two thoughts:

1. All priests are married. They are married to the church.
2. What does this have to do with your heart?

 

[Tomdstone]

Scripture mentions his mother in law but not his wife.

I thought his wife was mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:5 ?

 

[Markie_Boy]

And then you have this passage from St Paul:

1 Corinthians 9:5 (NASB)

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Yes - another relevant point.

My point being - I think scripture is clear that we should allow it, not mandate, but allow. Yes, they have the choice to become a priest or not, so if that’s where the “allowing” is.

It’s just the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics don’t seem to forbid it either.

As for my heart - I can’t convert yet as when you receive communion you are saying you agree to ALL doctrine of Rome (of which this is not doctrine, but discipline, I know).

I am working hard at this, so it’s not that I don’t care or just want to stir the pot.

 

[alphomega]

Well, for starters, eastern rite clergy are married sometimes. Also, we know Paul speaks of remaining unmarried for the sake of the faith.

Being married isn’t an absolute barrier to the priesthood. There are married Roman Catholic clergy in the church now.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I would like to see that Roman Catholicism is true, it would be so nice to convert with my heart.

But this AM I read two passages, 1 Tim 3:2-5 that says a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and even have children.

Then 1 Tim 4:1-3 that says it would be to depart from the faith to forbid marriage.

I know the difference between doctrine and discipline - by why would you ever, ever have a discipline that went AGAINST scripture?

I’m not sure you’re reading those passages correctly–I’ve never read them to say that the bishop must be married but rather that he can’t be married more than once. It a prohibition on being married more than once not a requirement to be married. You can’t read these verses in isolation but must read them in the context of the whole of Scripture. How do you reconcile your interpretation with Paul and the fact that he is not married? Do you deny Paul was a bishop?

The Church does not forbid marriage–in fact marriage is a vocation for some and a sacrament. It requires most of it’s clergy to be unmarried if they are called by God to serve in the ministerial priesthood, but this is not forbidding marriage. We are all called to follow our call from God whatever that might be.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

It’s interesting though - if Jesus handed Peter the keys - it appears he handed them to a married man.

It just looks like a discipline that goes against scripture. Agreed - Paul saw benefit in being single - but he bound no one to it.

I feel nothing should go against scripture - doctrine or discipline. Once you cross that line, where does it stop?

Catholic Answers has a tract on this–that you could read. It is not clear that Peter’s wife is still alive at the time he is following Christ. Peter’s wife nowhere appears in Scripture and indeed it is Peter’s mother-in-law who serves them once she is healed and not Peter’s wife which suggests that Peter may have been a widower.

Why don’t you seek out all the passages on marriage or lack thereof? Study them all in context and in the totality of Scripture. “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, some because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Christ quoted in Matthew 19:11-12.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[exnihilo]

Yes - another relevant point.

My point being - I think scripture is clear that we should allow it, not mandate, but allow. Yes, they have the choice to become a priest or not, so if that’s where the “allowing” is.

It’s just the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics don’t seem to forbid it either.

As for my heart - I can’t convert yet as when you receive communion you are saying you agree to ALL doctrine of Rome (of which this is not doctrine, but discipline, I know).

I am working hard at this, so it’s not that I don’t care or just want to stir the pot.

The Orthodox/Eastern practice is the same as the western church in so far as a man can not marry once he takes holy orders. So once you become a priest or deacon you don’t marry wether that is a first marriage or a second, if the wife dies. The Orthodox/Eastern allow men already married to be ordained to the deaconate and priesthood. The Latin Church allows this in rare cases such as with former Anglicans. The Orthodox only allow unmarried men to be ordained bishops.

You find that the practice is universal in the ancient churches to not allow a man to marry after he is ordained. You also find that bishops only come from the unmarried. So the vast majority of Christianity holds to this practice. It is only a small group who reject this. Being less popular doesn’t make the belief wrong, but it does tell you that a lot of people don’t seem to be troubled by the issue you raise.

You are right to not want to convert until you can say ‘I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God’. The Catholic Church does teach that she has the right to restrict the episcopacy to unmarried men. You object because of the way you read a few passages of Scripture. So my question is how are you so sure of your interpretation? It seems to me that there have been presented several ways of understanding those passages that make sense. If these explanations could resolve the problem why can’t you accept them?

I can sympathize because I was in the same position. As a Protestant looking at the Catholic Church I had lots of questions about how to resolve bits of Scripture. At the end of the day it comes down to accepting the authority of the Church. If you do then you can accept that she has the right to administer the Sacraments. Holy Orders is a Sacrament. If you don’t accept the authority of the Church then it doesn’t really matter if parts of Scripture seem to contradict her practice.

One question I’d consider is why do you think that Holy Scripture contains a complete, exhaustive and final description of who can be ordained? I’m not aware of any passage in Scripture indicating this. Certainly the passage you cite discusses ordination but it isn’t written in a way to suggest it is exhaustive. What if the Catholic Church would not ordain any man who had committed murder. Couldn’t you say the Catholic Church has no such right because nowhere in Scripture does it say you can’t or shouldn’t ordain a man who committed murder?

 

[Duane1966]

I thought his wife was mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:5 ?

Depends on what translation of the bible you are using. The interesting thing about the bibles where that word is translated as wife in your passage, do not translate the same word as wife when the same word is used in narratives pertaining to Jesus.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yes - another relevant point.

My point being - I think scripture is clear that we should allow it, not mandate, but allow. Yes, they have the choice to become a priest or not, so if that’s where the “allowing” is.

It’s just the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics don’t seem to forbid it either.

As for my heart - I can’t convert yet as when you receive communion you are saying you agree to ALL doctrine of Rome (of which this is not doctrine, but discipline, I know).

I am working hard at this, so it’s not that I don’t care or just want to stir the pot.

East has similar policy, once you are a priest that’s it, no marriage. RCC sometimes makes exceptions for those already married. Don’t see how it’s much difference.

And you are doing the right thing. We are called to be evangelists, but how can you evangelize unless you are secure in your own faith? Take your time

 

[in_servitude]

As for my heart - I can’t convert yet as when you receive communion you are saying you agree to ALL doctrine of Rome (of which this is not doctrine, but discipline, I know)

As I recall, the statement that a person makes when joining the Church is that you believe:

That everything that the Church teaches to be revealed by God is in fact revealed by God.

We know that the Church does not teach that a celibate priesthood is revealed by God. The Church does explain that this is a discipline, and it could change at any time. So, this is not something revealed by God.

Is your understanding different from this? That a person has to agree to the disciplines of the Church before they can receive communion?

In practice, I wonder how this would work. When the bishops gathered to change the discipline, would they have to stop receiving communion while some of them argued in favor of changing the discipline? Would those that argued against the change have to stop receiving the sacraments if the disciplines were later changed?

I’m not sure that your understanding of the ascent required at communion is the same as what others believe to be required.

 

[cjb_914]

Yes - another relevant point.

My point being - I think scripture is clear that we should allow it, not mandate, but allow. Yes, they have the choice to become a priest or not, so if that’s where the “allowing” is.

It’s just the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics don’t seem to forbid it either.

As for my heart - I can’t convert yet as when you receive communion you are saying you agree to ALL doctrine of Rome (of which this is not doctrine, but discipline, I know).

I am working hard at this, so it’s not that I don’t care or just want to stir the pot.

That 1 Corinthians snippet looks like it’s supporting this notion, but lets look at the full passage together (emphasis will be mine from here on in):

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?

8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. 11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? 14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

15 But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

So it seems this isn’t saying what that one verse on its own led us to believe:
St. Paul is defending himself from an accusation. This list of things he has a right to, including taking a wife, is all to say he abstains from his reward for his preaching. It appears he tries to engage in nothing but preaching the gospel. His great concern is that by doing some of these (any of these things) he might hinder the gospel. How would he hinder the gospel by partaking of these things? Well he continues:

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23** I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.**

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Okay, so we see here that he is doing this to build up his discipline. Not just to avoid taking his reward or taking more than was his due and give scandal, but also to improve his discipline and self-control. It’s fairly reasonable to say he has taken none of these things because they are not pertinent to his mission, his vocation: To preach the gospel. So this great apostle deemed it unwise to do or take any of these things. Ultimately it seems perfectly reasonable for the Church to ask her priests to take upon themselves one of these disciplines in the form of priestly celibacy to improve their self-control and (on a practical note) free them up to serve their flock. Both a family and a flock require full-time attention.

You’re on the right track! I’ve written this a touch quickly so apologies if I was unclear.

Good luck, and God bless!

 

[BobCatholic]

I would like to see that Roman Catholicism is true, it would be so nice to convert with my heart.

But this AM I read two passages, 1 Tim 3:2-5 that says a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and even have children.

If you are interpreting that the number 1 (as in one wife) is a minimum that means polygamy is OK for bishops, and in addition, the Apostles, and the 72 are disqualified from their positions.

If you interpret the number 1 as a MAXIMUM, then you see the Catholic position. One can have zero wives or one wife.

Then 1 Tim 4:1-3 that says it would be to depart from the faith to forbid marriage.

We prohibit marriage to same sex couples. Is this unscriptural per 1 Tim 4:1-3?

We prohibit marriage to people who are blood relatives. Is this unscriptural per 1 Tim 4:1-3?

We prohibit marriages to people who are already married (no polygamy) Is this unscriptural per 1 Tim 4:1-3?

The answer is no to all of the above.

I’m a married man who is Catholic, married in the Catholic Church. I wasn’t prohibited from marrying.

So this dog does not hunt.

 

[HobbitShoe]

Hello Markie Boy,

I am not aware of a total ban on marriage for the clergy. I have heard of priests who are married from before they received Holy Orders, though this seems to be done as a special favor for Anglican priests who want to convert. Nevertheless, this kind of dispensation would not be possible if the rule were absolute.

Priestly celibacy, which is the standard practice, took shape over many centuries. The 2nd Lateran Council is what most people point to as the moment when the rules “changed”. As is typically the case with church councils, the church was really defining an existing teaching rather than instituting something new.

You may find these links helpful to start researching the topic.

Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the council:
newadvent.org/cathen/09017a.htm

Canons of the council:
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.asp

I hope this helps, and I hope this hasn’t been posted already; I only skimmed through the thread.