Were The First Bishops Married?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exporter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
twf:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you twf. You are correct and I stand corrected. There is a distinction between bishops and presbyters or priests on this issue of celibacy. The formal answer is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 1580.
 
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...
“No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God. Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God’s call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 1578.
nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3.htm#vi
 
Greg: The Church DOES allow married presbyters, though not married bishops, in the Eastern Churches, so there is still that possibility. Yes, to add to what DTS just posted, the Church has been given the power to bind and to loose by Divine mandate. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in HEAVEN and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in HEAVEN.” Notice that I’m emphasizing the word Heaven. As God gave this authority to the apostles (and their successors in turn), He Himself will recognize this authority, and His plan is tailored to it (as He knew what the bishops would bind and loose). So what I am saying is that God will NOT call any man to both marriage and priesthood within the Latin Rite. God will never ask a man to defy the authority of Holy Mother Church…for the Holy Father and the bishops speak in the place of God. (This does not mean that they will always make the right decisions, they are human, but we must respect their decrees as if they were from God Himself). That is part of what it means when we say that the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ, and that the bishops are vicars of Christ within their own proper churches. (Remember Jesus told the Apostles that whoever rejects them or accepts them rejects/accepts Him…Lk 10:16) I do, however, see the possibility that God could call a married man within the Latin Rite to the priesthood if God was calling that man to serve in one of the Eastern Churches. As well, if a man is very certain that he is called both to marriage and to the clergy, then perhaps God is truly calling Him to be a deacon?

God bless, and keep the faith
 
Hello and thank you for the response,
40.png
twf:
Greg: The Church DOES allow married presbyters, though not married bishops, in the Eastern Churches, so there is still that possibility. The Church has been given the power to bind and to loose by Divine mandate. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in HEAVEN and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in HEAVEN.” Notice that I’m emphasizing the word Heaven. As God gave this authority to the apostles (and their successors in turn), He Himself will recognize this authority, and His plan is tailored to it (as He knew what the bishops would bind and loose). So what I am saying is that God will NOT call any man to both marriage and priesthood within the Latin Rite. God will never ask a man to defy the authority of Holy Mother Church…
Click to expand...
I do understand what you mean about this authority and your emphasis on Heaven is enlightening. However, I still don’t see why the practice is not problematic and here’s why:

Firstly, I think the doctrine that God can call married men to the priesthood is itself based on the power to bind and loose.

Secondly, the power to bind and loose regarding practice cannot oppose a doctrine that was also taught by the same power to bind and loose.

For example, you can’t teach a doctrine that stealing is a sin, and then say, well our power to bind and loose allows Catholics to steal.

The practice of the Church cannot oppose it’s own doctrine.

The doctrine of the Church teaches that God can call married men to the priesthood. This is taught by the power to bind and loose. How can we have a practice based on the same power to bind and loose that opposes the doctrine?

The heart of my question is how we can have a practice that is in opposition to a doctrine (and both are based on the same authority).

Thank You,
Greg
 
I do not wish to be obstinate about this question.

Please read carefully. Sometimes standard answers don’t address my questions.

Does the Church not have a doctrine that God can call married men to the priesthood? Is the doctrine rather that the question of married priests is left to the Church?

I still don’t understand how the discipline of unmarried priests does not contradict Paul’s reference to a bishop having one wife.

This is where my question lies. I certainly accept the Church’s authority to teach faith and morals. Could it be a mistake of practice that is more restrictive than Scripture allows it to be?

For example, we know that in general to eat food is moral (or course). We also know that we abstain from some food under Church direction. However, I question if ruling out marriage altogether for priests is more restrictive than the intention of Scripture. I.e. could we be making a mistake?

Thank You,
Greg
 
Eusebius reports in His Ecclesiastical History, Book III Chapter 30 as such:

*Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. “Or will they,” says he, “reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.” And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, ‘Oh thou, remember the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them." This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place. *

Celibacy of the priesthood is a Church discipline that the Church has the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18).However St. Paul recommends celibacy in 1Cor 7:32-35.
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
Celibacy of the priesthood is a Church discipline that the Church has the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18).However St. Paul recommends celibacy in 1Cor 7:32-35.
Click to expand...
Thank you,

I understand this Church authority to interpret Scripture and teach doctrine on faith and morals. My question is this:

Is the Church enforcing a practice that is in opposition to the intention of Scripture by generally not allowing married priests?

I consider the possibility that the Church would be wise to allow some married priests (beyond the current exceptions). I think the Church may be making a mistake and I would recommend that the Vatican consider allowing more married priests. I think the Church is may not be fully in line with the intent of Scripture.

Practice and discipline do not fall under infallibility. True? I think the Church may do well the consider this possibility: that the Lord’s mission is better served by allowing inspired married priests who are faithful and do not dissent as opposed to many unmarried priests who dissent and molest children. I think God’s Church could possibly grow faster and better establish the kingdom of God on earth by choosing the inspired and loyal from the married and unmarried, instead of many unloyal from the unmarried. I woudl go so far as to say that we may be in serious error and are seeing the consequences of this error by the failure to transform society. For example, we have abortion and rampant immorality in a society that is supposedly largely Catholic and Christian.

Also I do not claim that married priests is a solution to the abuse problem in the sense of sexuality. Rather, I think that it is clear that celibacy is not as important a requirement as faithfulness and sexual chastity whether the priest is married or unmarried.

I fully submit to Church authority and I am offended by dissent.

In fact the many of these problems I think may relate to a fairly serious **error of practice **of not allowing married priests.

What is better?

A celibate priest that:?
  • teaches contraception is OK
  • dissents
  • encourages voter’s that they don’t need to vote pro-life
  • (is connected with the other issue)
or

married and chaste priests that:
  • have deep love for Jesus
  • faithfully adhere to the magisterium
  • condemn abortion and contraception and teach the beauty and unselfishness of openness to life.
Which of the above is better?

I think the Church may be making a serious mistake right now and we are seeing the consequences.

I consider that perhaps faithfulness and holiness are more important than celibacy and the incredible massive dissent of the celibate seems to strongly speak to that.

Thank You,
Greg
 
40.png
twf:
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)
Click to expand...
Your response is excellent and right on the money!
 
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
Thank you,

I understand this Church authority to interpret Scripture and teach doctrine on faith and morals. My question is this:

Is the Church enforcing a practice that is in opposition to the intention of Scripture by generally not allowing married priests?

-snip-

I fully submit to Church authority and I am offended by dissent.

In fact the many of these problems I think may relate to a fairly serious **error of practice **of not allowing married priests.

What is better?

A celibate priest that:?
  • teaches contraception is OK
  • dissents
  • encourages voter’s that that don’t need to vote pro-life
  • (is connected with the other issue)
or

married and chaste priests that:
  • have deep love for Jesus
  • faithfully adhere to the magisterium
  • condemn abortion and contraception and teach the beauty and unselfishness of openness to life.
Which of the above is better?

I think the Church may be making a serious mistake right now and we are seeing the consequences.

I consider that perhaps faithfulness and holiness are more important than celibacy and the incredible massive dissent of the celibate seems to strongly speak to that.

Thank You,
Greg
Click to expand...
Greg,
I understand that you submit to the church but that you think that the church decreed an error in practice. This is possible. Perhaps, you think that they have gone too far (because they can?). However, what you fail to recognize is something that the Roman catholic church (RCC) knows all too well: abuse.

People will be people (even priests and bishops!). The RCC has been dealing with it for two thousand years and the jewish hierarchy for thousands of years before that. People are sinners. It is neccessary for the RCC to impose these more restrictive rules so that a mile will not be taken when an inch is given.

Above, You gave us a choice between (A) a celibate unorthodox priest and (B) married and celibate orthodox priests. I say you have committed the fallacy of the false dilemma. A and B are not the only choices. I choose choice C: Celibate orthodox priests.

It doesn’t have to be the way you say it is. Yes there is the dissent among some of the priesthood. It might even be widespread. But you commit another fallacy here (non sequitur) by saying that celibacy causes dissent. That is not the cause. For a thousand+ years, celibacy didn’t cause dissent, prideful people did.

Right now, it seems that there are a lot of dissenting priest but those guys will die away. They will be replaced sooner or later. St Paul’s advice that it’s best not to marry fits easily into the celibacy discipline.

Martin
 
Greg, there were, historically speaking, once married priests. At the same time, there were also CELIBATE priests.

Pope John Paul II addressed the issue of putative “ordination of women” in a recent document. Some would say, well, it’s not issued “ex cathedra” so this Pope or any subsequent Pope could CHANGE, and allow ordination of women. But the fact is, that documents like that are considered part of the ORDINARY TEACHING OF THE MAGESTERIUM. And the practice of celibacy for Latin rite priests IS part of the ordinary teaching of the Magesterium.

The discipline was not something that “came out of the blue”. For example, it wasn’t “the norm” for priests to marry in the early church. Some did, some didn’t. It depended a lot on location (Eastern rites had more married priests), on the culture being evangelized, on the bishops of the particular see at a particular time. But celibacy wasn’t some “fad” that had not existed, and was somehow “imposed” onto a “normative married priesthood”. As you are aware, Church teachings do NOT change, though certain practices may become more–or less–utilized. Women used to wear veils in church as a mandatory practice; now the practice is OPTIONAL. Abstinence from meat was once mandatory on every Friday (and yes, earlier on it was mandatory on many other days as well); now it is only mandatory on Lenten Fridays, and ANOTHER PENANCE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED for the abstinence on OTHER Fridays of the year. The idea of a Friday penitence has NOT been abrogated.

Regarding other things such as small “t” tradition, we can look at the issue of slavery in society. Since the Church, for example, never taught “slavery” as a dogma, doctrine, or discipline, when slavery was finally abolished in the U.S. in the 19th century it wasn’t as if the CHURCH had said, “Slavery is good” from the 1st to the mid 19th century, and then “changed its mind” thereafter. Despite the atheistic “harping” on Scriptural passages from Paul about “obeying your masters”, it is clear that slavery (which is based on complex factors including culture, tradition, and socioeconomics) is not “church teaching”, certainly not in the way that abortion (meaning, the evil of abortion) IS a church teaching. BTW, remember that Thomas Aqinas spoke about ensoulment, and how people leaped to assume that “the Church” believed that abortion was ok until anywhere from the 1st to the 2nd trimesters, on the words of Aquinas–but, though Aquinas is a marvelous theologian, those words were NOT PART OF OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING.

When celibacy became mandatory for the Latin rite priests, it was not an imposition, or a “change” in practice, but rather an acknowledgment (due to a deepening awareness and insight into the Catholic faith and teaching) , GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, that those who “aspired” (meaning, sought, not “entitled to get”) to the priesthood should be celibate.

So, to reiterate, God does not “call” a married man to the priesthood. Under the ordinary teaching of the church, celibacy is a requirement for the Catholic male aspirant.

Respectfully, I submit that these “calls” cannot be from God. God does not contradict Himself. God does not change. Never has God told His followers to absolutely DENY valid, authentic church teaching. He couldn’t. It would be like Him saying to a woman, “Well, I know some people SAID that said that you couldn’t abort your unborn child, but now , 30 years post Roe, I’ve decided that I have to make it known to lucky little YOU that the whole idea of abortion being intrinsically evil is WRONG–my church has been wrong–they’ve “misinterpreted” me–and so I’m telling YOU to tell the world that the church is wrong on abortion. You’ll be a saint. Trust me”.
 
Some were married and many were not. There was a custom that when a person received Holy Orders he and his wife agreed to live in continence. Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in 115 a.d. lamented that he was not a virgin. See Christian Cochini’s book Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=8702801&p=1010575

And we all know that the 11th century mandate of celibacy was not the promulgation of something new. Imagine this: a bishop or priest goes off to the Council, comes back home and says to his wife, “Dear, I have some really bad news for you . . .” :rotfl: You could NOT sell this as a brand new idea; it had a long and tried history, and the mandate was aimed at correcting abuses.
 
40.png
patg:
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
Click to expand...
Jesus never mentioned Bishops at all.
 
If we understand that Jesus was/is a sacrament–an earthly sign of a heavenly reality, it easy to see why as time progressed and the Holy Spirit led the Church in discernment of Jesus’ example and teachings that celibate priests became the rule (in the Latin rite more exactly).

From the prophets on, God/Jesus has been shown to be the bridegroom, the Church His bride. Allowing for the sacramental nature of priests/bishops etc. in their representation of the Bridegroom (humans this time, in persona Christi), it is easy to see why they are celibate, especially as they are given the graces necessary to more perfectly reflect Christ and His mission in the world.

Jesus told the Pharisees(?) that worrying which husband a woman would be with in the Kingdom was ridiculous, as life would not be as it is here. Thus, being celibate in this life is also a wonderful sacrifice that priests are called to make as a witness to their focus on the life to come. We are all supposed to remain focused on the life of the world to come, but priests more perfectly live this focus as a witness to the laity and the world at large.

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin
 
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
I do not wish to be obstinate about this question.

Please read carefully. Sometimes standard answers don’t address my questions.

Does the Church not have a doctrine that God can call married men to the priesthood? Is the doctrine rather that the question of married priests is left to the Church?

I still don’t understand how the discipline of unmarried priests does not contradict Paul’s reference to a bishop having one wife.

This is where my question lies. I certainly accept the Church’s authority to teach faith and morals. Could it be a mistake of practice that is more restrictive than Scripture allows it to be?

For example, we know that in general to eat food is moral (or course). We also know that we abstain from some food under Church direction. However, I question if ruling out marriage altogether for priests is more restrictive than the intention of Scripture. I.e. could we be making a mistake?

Thank You,
Greg
Click to expand...
Dear Greg,

In just over a week on this forum I have found it nearly impossible to get a straight answer to a challenging question that involves any original thought, and the more obvious the question the more enthusiastically it is dodged. My opinion is that the celibacy requirement could be a mistake, in a strategic sense. So maybe it’s true that Paul’s teaching about bishops only having one wife does not require them to have a wife. That said, if anybody thinks Paul was forbidding married bishops then they need to go revise every translation of the Bible I’ve ever seen because it is plain as day that he does not.

Given all that, does the Church have a right to pick and choose who becomes a priest based on whatever criteria she wants? I say, “yes.” Does the Church ever make decisions that are not in her best interest given her mission to make disciples of all the nations, feed the sheep, etc.? I say, “it is certainly possible.”

To the objection that priests’ time would be divided if they had families, maybe if we didn’t have the celibacy requirement we might have enough priests they wouldn’t be so stretched so thin and overworked that they can’t even keep up with their prayer life?

While I’m on a good rant, I can’t leave alone a comment from Tantum Ergo:
When celibacy became mandatory for the Latin rite priests, it was not an imposition, or a “change” in practice, but rather an acknowledgment (due to a deepening awareness and insight into the Catholic faith and teaching) , GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, that those who “aspired” (meaning, sought, not “entitled to get”) to the priesthood should be celibate.

So, to reiterate, God does not “call” a married man to the priesthood. Under the ordinary teaching of the church, celibacy is a requirement for the Catholic male aspirant.

Respectfully, I submit that these “calls” cannot be from God. God does not contradict Himself. God does not change.
Click to expand...
This would presume we know the mind of God better than Paul when he talked about bishops having only one wife. If not, the only other explanation are that bishops in Paul’s day were not “called” by God, or that God did change His tactics.

This can’t even be the belief of the Church, or the Church herself ordains men as priests who are not “called” by God when she ordains converts.

Was Greg’s question really so complicated? Can the Church make a mistake? She has in the past; why are we so presumptuous to think she cannot now?

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Dear Greg,

In just over a week on this forum I have found it nearly impossible to get a straight answer to a challenging question that involves any original thought, and the more obvious the question the more enthusiastically it is dodged. My opinion is that the celibacy requirement could be a mistake, in a strategic sense. So maybe it’s true that Paul’s teaching about bishops only having one wife does not require them to have a wife. That said, if anybody thinks Paul was forbidding married bishops then they need to go revise every translation of the Bible I’ve ever seen because it is plain as day that he does not.

-snip-
Was Greg’s question really so complicated? Can the Church make a mistake? She has in the past; why are we so presumptuous to think she cannot now?

Alan
Click to expand...
Alan,
ON GETTING A STRAIGHT ANSWER: I’ve been on this board too for a while and I haven’t seen much dodging. Obviously there will be people who don’t have the answers but there are undoubtably people who do.
Now, perhaps you may percieve that you aren’t getting a straight answer because you are proposing a false dilemma (which is a fallacy). You basically say, “If you show me X, then I will believe it.” You are requiring a response within certain parameters that may be (or may not be) impossible to show. But simply because you demand those parameters, doesn’t mean that we have to comply with that demand. And it certainly doesn’t mean that if we fail to comply, you have to right to declare a person a “dodger”. That’s the false dilemma: You have two choices – Either show me proof X, I declare you non-dodger OR you don’t show me proof X and I declare you a dodger. Instead we chose a thrid choice: someone may show you A thru W and Y and Z. It appears that we’re dodging but we are really not. It doesn’t always mean that because because we don’t have X, doesn’t mean that [conclusion of X] isn’t true.

ON GETTING A STRAIGHT ANSWER THAT INVOLVES ORIGINAL THOUGHT: Why is original thought required? Thoughts and ideas work just fine whether they be borne a thousand years ago or a second ago.

ON WHETHER THE CHURCH COULD’VE MADE A MISTAKE ON THIS MATTER OF PRIESTLY CELEBACY: Since this is a matter of disicpline and not faith and morals, then yes, the church could’ve made a mistake. But this also means that you or I could make a mistake. I (and other people) have been trying to show how the church isn’t making a mistake but in the end, it is only an opinion (albiet I think a very good one) and you are showing your opinion as well. I believe yours is weak and the church’s strong.

We can debate all we want to see which one (the church’s or yours) is better for all mankind but in the end, we can only prove a stronger or weaker opinion. I still want to talk about this but I just wanted to show how any response from us should be not considered “dodging” simply because you are looking for something else. Our job is to show/prove/demonstrate a point in any way that is reasonable, not neccessarily your way. Logic gives us the luxuries of both deductive and inductive reasoning and so there is more than one way to skin a cat.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Martin
 
40.png
mercygate:
Some were married and many were not. There was a custom that when a person received Holy Orders he and his wife agreed to live in continence. Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in 115 a.d. lamented that he was not a virgin. See Christian Cochini’s book Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=8702801&p=1010575
Click to expand...
Thank you! I was wondering when someone would mention this. It is most certainly true that men were allowed to marry in the early Church, but let us not leave out another very important point, once married a man could not have sexual relations with his wife (i.e. continence). The act of the Church to impose celibacy (the state of being unmarried), however, is a different matter, and in light of the above it is possibly the more pastorally sensitive. After all, how many people do you know that could live day in and day out with a woman and NOT have sexual relations.

Continence, despite what many have said and continue to say has been held from the beginning, and one may dare even argue that it may have a place within our Tradition with a BIG T.

I doubt how many of the men called to the priesthood and marriage at the same time would still pursue both vocations if they approached the situation as the early Christians did? For some reason I doubt we would have so many volunteers.
 
For further reading on this topic see ‘Celibacy in the Early Church’ by Stefan Heid and ‘The Case for Clerical Celibacy’ by A.M. Stickler.
 
Can the church make a mistake on diciplinary matters? Yes.

The church is composed of fallible human beings.

It is impossible for us to determine whether or not mandatory clerical celibacy is actually a mistake, but it isn’t improper for us to discuss whether a change in the rule might be worthwhile.

We might be frustrating the work of the Holy Spirit, calling men who will not be able to serve. We cannot know that these callings are not genuine.

But take this scenario: a young man (maybe 19 years old) feels he has a calling to be a priest and tells us about it. We say “Yaaah!” “pray on it!” " Good luck in your discernment!" “I’ll pray for you as you decide”.

A few years later we see him pushing a baby carriage down the lane with a pretty young woman on his arm with a big rock on her finger.

What do you think happened to his vocation? :hmmm:

So we say “I see you decided not to be a priest” and he says “oh no, I had a genuine calling, what makes you think I decided not to be a priest?”

In unison we reply “Well, you did decide to get married didn’t you? It must not have been a genuine calling or your faith wasn’t strong enough!”

And he says “I feel the same way about it as I felt before I met Linda, no different at all!” “In fact, with her encouragement, I feel more certain about my vocation than ever!”

And we say “I think the Holy Spirit changed his mind”.

And Linda replies “He will be graduating from the seminary this fall, and ordained at the cathedral before his first assignment!” “I am sooo proud of him!”

So we reply (pick one):
A- “You must be lying to me!”

B- “the Holy Spirit couldn’t still be calling a married man to the priesthood”

C- “You must not be a Roman Catholic, the Holy Spirit is smart enough to know He cannot call married Roman Catholics”.

D- fill in the blank here______________________________
 
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...
Not all the first bishops were married. Paul was not for one and neither was Titus. Paul said ONLY one wife, as in not more that one. No polygamy. He did NOT say MUST have a wife. What if a pastors wife dies? If your friends position is that a pastor MUST be married then a widower cannot be a pastor.
 
Hello and Thank You Alan,
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Dear Greg,

So maybe it’s true that Paul’s teaching about bishops only having one wife does not require them to have a wife. That said, if anybody thinks Paul was forbidding married bishops then they need to go revise every translation of the Bible I’ve ever seen because it is plain as day that he does not.
Click to expand...
You are basically seeing my point. What I also find as possibly hypocritical, is that everyone refers to the early Church Fathers when correcting Protestants, but we try to bypass the early Church Fathers when it comes to married clergy. It seems we can be cafeteria Catholics about what we want to model from the early Fathers.

I am also not convinced that married clergy were continent. That seems like an unkind (almost mean) way to treat a wife who married in good faith expecting sex to be part of the marriage. We seem to have this view that even sex within marriage, a gift from God, is somehow in opposition to being pure and holy enough to be a priest. The gospel says nothing at all like this that I can see. The gospel encourages celibacy for holiness and practical reasons but does not seem to advocate strict rules. The Bible’s promotion of celibacy seems to have a spirit of personal holiness, not strict requirement. When you start enforcing an encouraged but optional personal holiness as a requirement, I think you can go too far in one direction and not far enough in the other.

I think the true holiness of celibacy is seen in its voluntariness even in the priesthood. I would strongly encourage it in clergy, but not require it. The strict requirement does not seem to be in line with the spirit of the gospel’s encouragement to celibacy and the role each person’s free will. Not all are called to celibacy, but for the Church to say that since you are not called to celibacy, then you can’t be a priest, seems possibly an error that in fact may not be in service of Jesus. I think some of the problems with the way the Church seems to have stalled in transforming the world today may prophetically point to this error. I am pro-Catholic and I wish to see the mission of Jesus go much further. I am against artificial contraception, abortion, materialism. The fact that many Catholics and some priests apparently don’t follow Church teachings on contraception and that our society is so sexually immoral, seems to indicate that the Church has become an isolated institution that is there for holiday mass, weddings, and funerals but not much more than that. The celibate priesthood has not seemed to solve these problems of dissent, etc.

The above are my arguments in favor, but I am also open to arguments against. I am open to understand this better and I certainly accept that I could be wrong.

So far, the arguments about Church fathers being continent seems to be choosing from whatever cafeteria agrees with that point of view. Would not many admit that in fact there were many, many clergy who were married and were not continent? I’d like to learn more about this.

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