Were The First Bishops Married?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exporter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Exporter

Guest
A Protestant is asking me why were all of the 1st Century Bishops married when later all the Catholic Bishops were not married. I think about the year 600, a Council made celebacy mandantory.

In 1st Timothy3:1-2, requirements were given by Paul for Bishops. It says to “to have only one wife”. So the Protestant is saying Bishops should be married. I say it was Jesus who instituted the colleege of Bishops - NOT Paul. How do I answer this question?
 
Jesus never mentioned bishops or their marriage status (not that we have a record of). What is the connection between who instituted the bishops and whether they were married?

Pat
 
You might find the article on ‘Celibacy of the Clergy’ in the old Catholic Encyclopedia of some use: newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
It gives a Catholic interpretation the Scripture passage you mention as well as the historical development of the discipline of Celibacy for the Clergy.
 
Celibacy of the priesthood (bishops) was decreed by Pope Gregory VII in 1079. That having been written, no man is forced to become a priest, no man is forced to be celibate and the argument that others have against the tradition of Latin Rite priests being celibate is bogus. Other Rites of the Church do not call for celibate priests.
 
40.png
Exporter:
A Protestant is asking me why were all of the 1st Century Bishops married when later all the Catholic Bishops were not married. I think about the year 600, a Council made celebacy mandantory.

In 1st Timothy3:1-2, requirements were given by Paul for Bishops. It says to “to have only one wife”. So the Protestant is saying Bishops should be married. I say it was Jesus who instituted the colleege of Bishops - NOT Paul. How do I answer this question?
Click to expand...
Isn’t he forgetting about another Pauline passage that says it would be better if church leaders were not married?

Anyway, celibate priests is a normative practice for the Latin Church, not a doctrine.

Scott
 
What I don’t understand is that if Scripture makes it clear that it is acceptable for a bishop to be married, how can the Church not allow it? This seems like it might contradict Scripture.
 
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
What I don’t understand is that if Scripture makes it clear that it is acceptable for a bishop to be married, how can the Church not allow it? This seems like it might contradict Scripture.
Click to expand...
The requirement of single celibacy is imposed as a matter of discipline not of doctrine. Theoretically, the disciplinary rule could be changed at any time. However, the Apostle Paul commended celibacy as allowing one to focus completely on spiritual things. The Western church has simply followed his ideal for more than a thousand years. As a previous post noted, some rites within the church do allow bishops to be married. It is also possible for some Anglican converts to the Catholic faith to be married while serving as priests (a few other converts as well).

The church does not teach that it is wrong for a bishop to married, unless he is doing so as a matter of disobedience.

Anyone, who has a family with children, should be able to discern how much time families require and how they force a change in a lifestyle.
 
DTS: No, this is not true. All bishops are celibate. The presbyters of the Eastern Catholic Churches are permitted to marry as long as they are married PRIOR to ordination, and they may not remarry if their spouse passes away; however, those men who are elevated to the episcopate are always celibate priests. The practice of celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. In the 1st century, the apostles allowed bishops to marry, but they also could be celibate (as is evident in the case of Paul, who was a super-bishop, in a sense…look at how highly he speaks of the state of celibate life, Jesus also venerates this lifestyle in Matt. 19:11-12). It is not contrary to Scripture, for it is not a doctrinal matter. The Church has the authority to bind and to loose, an authority Christ gave to the apostles (Matt 18:18, a power that was first given to Peter in a singular way in Matt 16:19). Binding and loosing authority were the terms used to describe the authority of the rabbis…the authority to teach and to impose disciplines. We are not to interpret Scripture on our own, the Church binds us to the correct understanding of Scripture, and She in her wisdom realizes that this precept for the married state of bishops is a disciplinary matter and not a doctrinal one. (It should also be noted that when Paul speaks of bishops in this particular passage, he is probably speaking of the priesthood in general, as the term ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ were still used interchangeably…of course the presbyterate and episcopate existed as separate offices, as evident by the authority Timothy and Titus had, but the terms were not yet fixed).

11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
(Matthew 19)
 
40.png
dts:
The requirement of single celibacy is imposed as a matter of discipline not of doctrine. Theoretically, the disciplinary rule could be changed at any time. However, the Apostle Paul commended celibacy as allowing one to focus completely on spiritual things. The Western church has simply followed his ideal for more than a thousand years.
Click to expand...
That’s a decent answer. I did understand Paul recommending celibacy.

I still think that the way we enforce it as a discipline has made it effectively a doctrine. I think the Church may be more in line with Scripture by strongly recommending celibate clergy but still allowing married priests. I also don’t understand how the Church can say that a married man is not called by God to the priesthood. If a married man truly believes that he is called by God to the priesthood and shows extraordinary faithfulness and love of God, how could the Church ever reject this or even claim to know that the man is not called by God?

Greg
 
The best treatment of clerical celibacy I have ever read comes from the Pope’s “Pastores Dabo Vobis” (Post-Synodal Exhortation), #29.
  1. Referring to the evangelical counsels, the Council states that “preeminent among these counsels is that precious gift of divine grace given to some by the Father (cf. Mt. 19:11; 1 Cor. 7:7) in order more easily to devote themselves to God alone with an undivided heart (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32-34) in virginity or celibacy. This perfect continence for love of the kingdom of heaven has always been held in high esteem by the Church as a sign and stimulus of love, and as a singular source of spiritual fertility in the world.”(76) In virginity and celibacy, chastity retains its original meaning, that is, of human sexuality lived as a genuine sign of and precious service to the love of communion and gift of self to others. This meaning is fully found in virginity which makes evident, even in the renunciation of marriage, the “nuptial meaning” of the body through a communion and a personal gift to Jesus Christ and his Church which prefigures and anticipates the perfect and final communion and self - giving of the world to come: “In virginity or celibacy, the human being is awaiting, also in a bodily way, the eschatological marriage of Christ with the Church, giving himself or herself completely to the Church in the hope that Christ may give himself to the Church in the full truth of eternal life.”(77)
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
The synod fathers clearly and forcefully expressed their thought on this matter in an important proposal which deserves to be quoted here in full: “While in no way interfering with the discipline of the Oriental churches, the synod, in the conviction that perfect chastity in priestly celibacy is a charism, reminds priests that celibacy is a priceless gift of God for the Church and has a prophetic value for the world today. This synod strongly reaffirms what the Latin Church and some Oriental rites require that is, that the priesthood be conferred only on those men who have received from God the gift of the vocation to celibate chastity…]. The synod does not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church’s firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite. 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.”(78)
Click to expand...
continued…
 
It is especially important that the priest understand the theological motivation of the Church’s law on celibacy. Inasmuch as it 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.
Click to expand...
For an adequate priestly spiritual life, celibacy ought not to be considered and lived as an isolated or purely negative element, but as one aspect of the positive, specific and characteristic approach to being a priest. Leaving father and mother, the priest follows Jesus the good shepherd in an apostolic communion, in the service of the People of God. Celibacy, then, is to be welcomed and continually renewed with a free and loving decision as a priceless gift from God, as an "incentive to pastoral charity "(79) as a singular sharing in God’s fatherhood and in the fruitfulness of the Church, and as a witness to the world of the eschatological kingdom. To put into practice all the moral, pastoral and spiritual demands of priestly celibacy it is absolutely necessary that the priest pray humbly and trustingly, as the Council points out: “In the world today, many people call perfect continence impossible. The more they do so, the more humbly and perseveringly priests should join with the Church in praying for the grace of fidelity. It is never denied to those who ask. At the same time let priests make use of all the supernatural and natural helps which are now available to all.”(80) Once again it is prayer, together with the Church’s sacraments and ascetical practice, which will provide hope in difficulties, forgiveness in failings, and confidence and courage in resuming the journey.
Click to expand...
 
If an already married Catholic man truly believes that he is called by God to the priesthood and shows extraordinary faithfulness and love of God, how could the Church ever reject this or even claim to know that the man is not called by God?
 
Well, Greg, however much an individual may BELIEVE himself to be called by God. . .much as there are women today who BELIEVE that they are called to the priesthood. . .that “belief” , or “feelings”, just don’t cut it.

We have rules and regulations for a reason. I know the average, individualistic, “my way or the highway” type of person of today finds it absolutely GALLING to “submit” to any sort of restraint, but there ARE restraints, there are absolutes.

We don’t have “gluten free” communion wafers.
We don’t have “women priests”.
We don’t have “married priests”, except in very rare and special cases which have come to us AS CONVERTS with a previous family–and, in the case of the death of the spouse, the convert priest MAY NOT MARRY AGAIN.
We don’t have laws which change from black to white, or vice versa. We don’t say, “God is present in FOUR persons”’; there are THREE. Not one, not two, not four or more, but THREE.
We DO have small t traditions which can change, but not from black to white. Where a small t tradition has changed, i.e., women not HAVING to wear a veil to Mass, it has NOT become, “women are NOT ever, ever to wear a veil to Mass”–rather, it has become, “women may wear a veil, or they may not–it depends upon the culture and tradition.”
 
Yes, Peter was a bishop, and we know that at some time he was married, as there is reference to his mother-in-law. However, remarkably, there is no mention of his wife. Isn’t it entirely possible that Peter was a widower? Especially since the Bible passage goes on to state that Peter’s mother-in-law was healed and “got up to wait on them”? Hello, shouldn’t Peter’s WIFE have been mentioned as helping too? The fact that she wasn’t, that an older woman (the mother-in-law) was the only one mentioned as helping to wait on the apostles, is significant.

Also, Peter mentions that he and the other apostles gave up “many things” for Jesus. . .and this was in response to Jesus’ stating that those who do His will were “My mother and brothers”, and would receive recompense. Um, Peter was a poor fisherman. . .so, just what did he “give up?” The apostles were communal. A poor fisherman just barely had enough to live on–Peter’s economic status wouldn’t have been much better if he were NOT an apostle–so doesn’t it make sense, especially given the context, that Peter–and the other apostles–“GAVE UP” their wives, children, families–to be cared for by OTHERS, disciples perhaps but not necessarily of the apostolic (later priestly and bishop) traditions?
 
Hello Tantum Ergo,

Unmarried priests is a discipline not a doctrine, so it is not analogous to a doctrine such as the trinity.

How does the Church know that God does not call Catholic men who are already married to the priesthood?

Thank You,
Greg
 
The Church “Knows” through Scripture and Tradition.

How do YOU know that the Church is “wrong?”
 
Back before the mandate for celibate priests came to be, priests were allowed to marry and have families. However, a situation arose. People were becoming priests for the wrong reasons. It was a nice job with good pay, in a time when there weren’t good jobs like that, and it guaranteed a good position in the community. What was happening was that the “priestly” positions were being passed on like an inheritance, from one family member to another. The Celibacy Mandate was issued to stop this.

One thing every minister will tell you-be he Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, or whatever-if he’s married he has a great deal of difficulty balancing time with his family and time as a minister. My husband is a part-time minister with the Church of Christ, and he has difficulty balancing with only a part-time position.

In a perfect world, priests would be able to marry and balance their home-lives with their priestly duties, but the world is not perfect. Actually, I think it’s great that they are married to the Church because then their entire focus can be on Christ and the needs of the parish. I’m not saying that people who aren’t married are more devoted to God than people who are, but there are more things you can do with your time for God and others if you don’t have a family.

Scout :tiphat:
 
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
If an already married Catholic man truly believes that he is called by God to the priesthood and shows extraordinary faithfulness and love of God, how could the Church ever reject this or even claim to know that the man is not called by God?
Click to expand...
I need to point out that virtually every mainline Protestant denomination has a rigorous discernment process not controlled by the one who claims he’s called. If one walked into a Lutheran synod office and said, “I truly believe I am called to be a pastor. Where’s my congregation?” he’d have to get approval from an authority and THEY determine, not him.

Scott
 
Hello Tantum,
Tantum ergo:
How do YOU know that the Church is “wrong?”
Click to expand...
I am saying that the Church doctrine that accepts married priests is indeed right. Why do you say I am saying that the Church is wrong regarding doctrine based on Scripture and Tradition? I’m not saying that at all.
Tantum ergo:
The Church “Knows” through Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
A Church discipline is not a doctrine. Scripture and Tradition allow that married men can indeed be priests. This is Catholic teaching.

The discipline of unmarried priests works within official Church doctine that does indeed allow married priests. I also agree that unmarried priests can in general be good and is biblically recommended. What I am asking about is the lack of exceptions (besides converts) given official Catholic teaching that priests can be married.

My question also has nothing to do with a person’s claim to be called but rather to the reality that God does indeed call men to the priesthood.

How can the Church know that a specific married man is not called by God to be a priest when the official Catholic doctrine is that married men can be called by God to be priests?

Thank You,
Greg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top