Z
Zanchius
Guest
The reason is because there are some “who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” 1 Timothy 4:2
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Celibacy and the Catholic Priest
Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.
Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”
1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”
Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?
1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.
There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.
The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.
The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely.
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
As I read this it does not support the Catholic concept of forbidding marriage to a priest, or even meatless Fridays.
I understand you can choose to not be a priest and get married, but that’s a different choice.
It also does not seem very “universal” to have some Catholic branches that allow it and others that don’t. Married status of pastors is kind of a biggie.
In the Old Testament priest could not only marry, but also have children - actually I think that’s how you would become a priest - it was in the family.
If the New is better than the Old - why would you withhold a sacrament (marriage) from a minister?
It indicates some that would do so would be in the wrong.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I addressed this in my post.
And “meatless Fridays” is interesting, because fasting is not eating any foods - yet Christ said we are to fast. But for some reason partial fasts (i.e. abstinence from some foods - like meat) is wrong. Hmmmm…I can’t figure the biblical basis for that.
E
e_c
Guest
All of these things - abstinence from meat on designated days, priestly celibacy in the Latin Church, etc. - are ecclesiastical law (which is a HUMAN law within the context of the Church). They have nothing to do with what Paul is talking about. There were groups at the time (and afterward) who simply forbade marriage and eating of certain foods PERIOD because they thought it was sinful in itself.
Celibacy is a patterning of one’s life after the example and encouragement of Christ, then also of the apostles (MAYBE some exceptions). Since nobody has a right to ordination, the Church can require certain sacrifices. This is one of them. And it indeed makes even more sense that the “better” life is as a celibate, since that is quite essential to how Christ lived and how it will be in Heaven, revelations that are only clear from the New Testament.
Markie - I will say again that you will find a million little troubles that will cause you to second guess yourself. This is not the virtue of prudence, it is simple indecision. And it is not from God. Focus on the big picture and the fundamental principles - authority, doctrine, the witness of the saints… That you happen not to understand exactly how some detail fits into it all should matter very little. TRUST that it DOES fit. It will be easier to understand when you are part of it… “I believe that I may understand,” as Augustine said.
I
in_servitude
Guest
I thought that the whole point of this thread that you created was due to your concern that you would not be allowed to receive the Eucharist. But, I think it is clear that you are in fact not required to abstain from communion even if you do disagree with the Latin Rite’s discipline on priestly celibacy. In this case, you are withholding the sacrament from yourself.
I wonder if the title of this thread is true, or if you are engaged in sophistry. It seems to me that you could reply to the several well thought out posts that have been made here. Why not explain where you see people making errors in their logic?
I think I read one of these posts that asked you if you thought it was okay to withhold the sacrament of marriage from same-sex couples. Or from a man who is already married. You didn’t respond to those questions, but it would be helpful to understand your thinking on the several questions that have come your way in order to better understand your perspective.
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
I’m not OK with same sex marriage or multiple wives. Generally I get labeled as really conservative.
Yes - I am trying to convert. I do tend to be detail oriented…to a fault sometimes probably.
I have read so much, I really need to put all my thoughts and findings on paper, as I feel a little confused myself.
I have come to accept things I really used to fight against like infant baptism. I am currently listening to Rome Sweet Home audio book, and trying to read Upon This Rock by Steve Ray. The book is really a slow read for me, but it already did away with the large rock-small rock idea.
Seriously working on things. I’ll try to collect my thoughts better before fielding any more questions.
Thank you all
Yes - I am trying to convert. I do tend to be detail oriented…to a fault sometimes probably.
I have read so much, I really need to put all my thoughts and findings on paper, as I feel a little confused myself.
I have come to accept things I really used to fight against like infant baptism. I am currently listening to Rome Sweet Home audio book, and trying to read Upon This Rock by Steve Ray. The book is really a slow read for me, but it already did away with the large rock-small rock idea.
Seriously working on things. I’ll try to collect my thoughts better before fielding any more questions.
Thank you all
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Are you really reading and pondering the responses you have been given? Have you read the response given on this website at www.catholic.com/quickquestions/doesnt-1-timothy-43-disprove-the-priesthood That response suggest that there are a couple of problems with you reading of the verse. One of them being: No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests. Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests freely sacrifice the option of marriage in favor of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, celibate disciples. [remember one is called to the priesthood–one discerns this vocation–it is a call from God it is not just a job we can pick because we want to] … 1 Timothy 4:3, far from impugning the Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy, condemns those heresies (like the Manichaeans and Albigensians) which said marriage is evil because the body is evil. Paul wasn’t warning Timothy about the Catholic discipline–after all, Paul himself followed it.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
P
pablope
Guest
Sometimes…it helps to ask for guidance in interpreting such verses that seem a contradiction.
And remember, it is a seeming contradiction because of our mis-interpretation.
Now on to this…catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/must-bishops-be-the-husband-of-one-wife
U
Usagi
Guest
Note that none of the ancient Churches (Catholic or Orthodox, Western or Eastern) permit a man to marry after ordination, even if he was married before and is widowed. So “withholding a sacrament from a minister” is pretty much a universal practice that goes way back.
The difference between East and West consists only in what levels of Holy Orders admit already-married men. In the West, married men can be ordained as deacons, but not usually as priests or bishops. (There are individual exceptions, because this is a discipline and not something handed down from God, but in any case it’s a matter of a married man being ordained, not an ordained man being married after the fact.) In the East, married men can be ordained as deacons or priests, but only unmarried priests (possibly only priests who are also monks; I read one source that had it that way but I am not 100% sure) are considered for elevation to the episcopate.
The key point is that the Church is allowed to make these rules. No one has an absolute claim on the priesthood, and there is no absolute, unchangeable principle that priests must be unmarried. However, it has been the judgment of the Church in the West for some time that it is best for priests not to have to concern themselves with the additional obligations of marriage and family, and so she chooses priests primarily from among the unmarried. No injustice is done, and no command of God is violating, by the observance of this rule. (Conversely, the same would be true if the Church were to start ordaining married men as a more regular practice.)
The Timothy passage is interpreted far too broadly when it is held to be pointing to future Catholic practices rather than to specific heretical movements in the time it was written. That some forbid marriage and thereby depart from the faith does not mean that the true Church may never accept only the unmarried to fill certain roles (while encouraging the vast majority to marry). Likewise, having rules of fast and abstinence on certain special days, as a way of encouraging self-denial, is not the same thing as the wholesale forbidding of certain foods.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t believe that is true in all cases. I think that there have been cases in Russia, where a priest with several children, who lost his wife was allowed to bring his family to the countryside and remarry.
U
Usagi
Guest
True, I think there can be exceptions there as well, but the general practice is that marriage, if it occurs, precedes ordination.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Markie!
…that sounds sensible…
…but it also sounds very sola Scriptura-retentive: ‘if it’s not in Scriptures,’ or ‘show me in Scriptures.’
…but you lose the “sensible” part of your argument when you reason that you fault the Church practice because it was made a mandate and not left as a “choice.”
…it seems like you want to wait till the Church recognizes the peeves of non-Catholics, make the Church “all-inclusive,” and then you’ll begin to think about whether she has merits to speak in the name of Christ.
…throughout time thousands have sought to Worship God according to their own rendering of Scriptures… it happened right from the New Testament’s scrolls: people were both rejecting Apostolic Authority and creating their own version of Christ’s Gospel…
St. Paul’s Teachings were being deride as wrong and pretentious… St. Peter, Inspired by the Holy Spirit, warned that those who rejected St. Paul’s Writings did so with the rest of Scriptures as well and that their only gain would be their own destruction. They rejected God out of the need to have things their way (according to their own understanding).
…and this was not a single-time event; we have the various passages in Scriptures that speak against the various heresies that had been arising even during the Apostles’ Ministry… it became clear that there had to be a defining Authority and we have it stated in 1st Timothy:
(1 Timothy 3:15)
…St. Paul states that it is the Church that sets the boundaries on Christian behavior (conduct and Worship), because it is the Church that is the deposit of Truth, vis-à-vis Faith.
…when you question the Church about a practice because it does not seem fair to you, do you think that the Church made the transition overnight–that is, that the Church simply introduced the practice out of capriciousness? …consider those who, even in the name of the Church, embrace homosexuality, divorce, abortion, and woman’s priesthood–they contend that they are more righteous and spiritual than the Church and since the Church does not bend to their demands they seek to force her to submission by remaining in the physical parishes while rejecting Church Authority as they claim to possess the correct “mind” of God in “their” greater generosity and mercy…
In actuality, what they are doing engaging in disobedience and dissention–they create chaos in the Body and sell it as freedom from the “oppressive authoritarianism” of the Church… this, of course, has the marks of protest not of enlightened sound doctrine/act.
Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Ex!
…you’ve ended your post on a very strong thought… I concur with you that the final (more like the greatest) stumbling block is Church’s Authority…
…once a person allows the Holy Spirit to Guide them to the Fullness of Truth (the Church) there’s no escaping… the Unity of the Body is found in submission to God’s Salvific Plan… He Became Man, Suffered, Died, and Resurrected… but seeking to not leave us orphaned, before He Ascended into Heaven, He Founded His Church… she is His Mystical Body to which He Sent the Holy Spirit as Guide and Advocate… it is through the Holy Spirit that He Delegates His Authority so that man does not Stand alone in fear and confusion.
Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Markie!
Randy Carson, Post #39, gave you a full breakdown of Scriptures (as others and myself have attempted) to help you gain the right understanding… you could reject all of our posts and still hold your own understanding as the trump-card…
I would offer that you slow down a bit… relax your stance… let the Holy Spirit speak to you…
…now, if you are a married man seeking a Priestly Vocation I can see how this would be an issue of import to your spiritual sojourn… perhaps (if this is in deed the case) you should seek the counsel of a Vocational Advisor–every Catholic diocese has one. You may find that there might be special concessions offered by the Church to allow a married man to enter the Priesthood.
Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Randy!
Excellent post!
…it is easy to miss that Christ is pointing to celibacy as a Gift from God… how wrong is that, to take on the Gift God offers?
Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!
Angle
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
…as with many posters here, I feel that the post is basically rhetorical or as you’ve pointed out, sophistry.
…I engage them because of those who may be reading through (specially those seeking to fault Catholic Faith) and I want to offer whatever correction/enlightenment I am able.
…it is curious how they choose to skip over posts that challenge their arguments while responding only to those which they think offers them supporting statements or those that, to their perspective, seem weak and easy to morph into their argument.
…much of their reasoning seems flawed… it is as though they are engaging in: “if it looks like a quack it must be a platypus.” :slapfight::slapfight::slapfight:
Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Markie!
…sorry for the distrust of your earnest search…
…I think that part of the reason why the guard went up is that you (as many others) do not engage those points that are raised, the explanations given, and the counter points offered… you simply return to your position: “I.”
…it makes one think that the individual (in this case, you) has determined that everything must conform to his/her preconception of things… it is as though once the mind of man has created it it must be so!
…remember that ole saying: “I think, therefore I am?”
…the problem with this narrative is that people have come to believe that Descartes was, in essence, discarding God… “I” becomes absolute… rather, Descartes was stating that the initial doubt gives rise to the thought, which in turn gives evidence of existence: a mind!
Please do not stop seeking the Truth… just slowdown enough to listen and redirect your perspective! …as you’ve stated, you’ve reasoned, through aides, beyond your known confines and have opened yourself to a fuller understanding…
May the Holy Spirit Grant you the Knowledge you seek!
Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!
Angel
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:tiphat:
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I think you tend to forget that Paul had the power of laying on of hands that is he could ordained Presbyters, Deacons and Bishops. Was Paul married? I haven’t seen any evidence he was. The problem is that you’re thinking that one must be married to be a bishop. That’s faulty thinking. I don’t see how that goes against scripture since, it looks to me like Paul was a bishop.
- Status