When did the tradition of priests not marrying start?

[choy]

I’m just going with the “Come Follow Me” message. You can read anything you want into that.

it is believed that St. Peter’s wife followed along

its not just the 12 who exclusively follows Jesus, but a number of disciples as well. its not far off that among these disciples are the wives of the married apostles

 

[diggerdomer]

It started with Christ and was practiced by the Apostles. "For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner. and another after that. But I say to the unmarried. and to the widow: it is good for them if they so continue, even as i “–1 Cor 7:7-8. Christ and the Apostles were celibate as st paul clearly shows he was by asking unmarried and widows to follow his example by also being celibate. The primary reason why this is asked is because a member of the clergy must be focused on his flock and the saving of souls. When your married you must be focused on your wife which can lead to distraction or a confilct in obligations. For instance if your child is sick and needs to go to the hospital but your parishoner is dying and needs last rights whom should you help? If you were not married all of your focus can be turned to your priestly duties. Saint paul explains this also: " But i would have you to be without solicitude. he that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”—1 Cor 7:32-34.

Priestly celibacy is obligatory in the Western rite and has been since 440-461. The first recorded law enforcing celibacy was not passed until about the year 300 by the Council of Elvira in Spain. Yet this does not mean it was not practiced earlier as we can see by the life of Christ, & Apostles

St. Peter was married.

St. Paul was not writing to or about priests when he urged celibacy to the Corinthians, he was writing to the whole community (and he was just writing to the Corinthians). Paul may have been married, we just don’t know.

 

[tonyrog]

Does anyone know when the tradition of priests not marrying started? I thought it started in the middle ages and had something to do with land rights. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

In the 11 century Pope Benadict required all priests to be celibate so that on the death of the Priest no church property could be past on to thei Heirs.

 

[TheDoctor]

In the 11 century Pope Benadict required all priests to be celibate so that on the death of the Priest no church property could be past on to thei Heirs.

Hi Tony. I have heard for years that passing on of Church property was one of the reasons but I have never been able to validate it (the counter argument is that the property belonged to the Church, i.e. the Bishop, and not to individual Priests). Do you have a citation or link for the Benedict edict? Thanks in advance.

 

[gearhead]

It started with Christ and was practiced by the Apostles. "For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner. and another after that. But I say to the unmarried. and to the widow: it is good for them if they so continue, even as i "–1 Cor 7:7-8. Christ and the Apostles were celibate as st paul clearly shows he was by asking unmarried and widows to follow his example by also being celibate.

1 Cor 9:5-6 seems to suggest that the apostles were in fact married:

5Do 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?

6Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?

In any case, this passage says to me that Paul believed that he did have a right to take a wife, even if he didn’t choose to exercise this right.

 

[Hesychios]

It started with Christ and was practiced by the Apostles. "For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner. and another after that. But I say to the unmarried. and to the widow: it is good for them if they so continue, even as i “–1 Cor 7:7-8. Christ and the Apostles were celibate as st paul clearly shows he was by asking unmarried and widows to follow his example by also being celibate. The primary reason why this is asked is because a member of the clergy must be focused on his flock and the saving of souls. When your married you must be focused on your wife which can lead to distraction or a confilct in obligations. For instance if your child is sick and needs to go to the hospital but your parishoner is dying and needs last rights whom should you help? If you were not married all of your focus can be turned to your priestly duties. Saint paul explains this also: " But i would have you to be without solicitude. he that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”—1 Cor 7:32-34.

Priestly celibacy is obligatory in the Western rite and has been since 440-461. The first recorded law enforcing celibacy was not passed until about the year 300 by the Council of Elvira in Spain. Yet this does not mean it was not practiced earlier as we can see by the life of Christ, & Apostles

No offense intended, there is a strong tendency among us to mythologize the past (we all do it), and this would seem to be a good example. Please, if possible, give some additional links or references in support of your contentions.

First, the contention that celibacy was practiced by the Apostles.

Second, that the (if I read you right) Council in 440 - 461 mandated celibacy for the entire western church. I think that one will find that this local Council did not have the authority to mandate for the entire church, but for a specific geographically based part. (I realize that the Roman Catholic church is no longer structured in this way.)

Thanks

 

[ProVobis]

It is a fact that the Church has always ordained married men to the priesthood.

The OP however posits the notion that priests could marry at some point. This is different than ordaining married priests. And deacons for that matter.

 

[Hesychios]

it is believed that St. Peter’s wife followed along

There is a theory that Saint Peter’s daughter was martyred in Rome.

It’s pretty dicey, no way to really know for sure. The tradition of Saint Peter’s wife is much stronger.

 

[Heliotropium]

No offense intended, there is a strong tendency among us to mythologize the past (we all do it), and this would seem to be a good example. Please, if possible, give some additional links or references in support of your contentions.

First, the contention that celibacy was practiced by the Apostles.

Second, that the (if I read you right) Council in 440 - 461 mandated celibacy for the entire western church. I think that one will find that this local Council did not have the authority to mandate for the entire church, but for a specific geographically based part. (I realize that the Roman Catholic church is no longer structured in this way.)

Thanks

For Christ obviously celibacy was practiced unless you want to call yourself Dan Brown and believe otherwise. As for the Apostles celibacy and evidence of it we can look to historical record. There is no dispute that Peter had a wife but He did not take a wife after Christ called Him and there is no written record of the other Apostles taking wives after or before they were called to follow Christ (I’m sure if there were they would have been presented as argument against the law of priestly celibacy). We all agree Christ was the messiah but we also can all agree Christ was the first Priest of the New Law and that with His life He set the standard for all clergy. Lets not forget the fact that celibacy and virginity are looked at as means to a higher dagree of Holiness in scripture.

Also you did misunderstand me. In stating that priestly celibacy as being obligatory since 440-461 I never a council decided this but that the position is taken based off of the writings from that time. For example: Pope Leo the Great writes to Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne (458/9):

"The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar, for the bishops and for the priests; when they were (still) lay people or lectors, they could freely take a wife and beget children. But once the

 

[Heliotropium]

Looks like it cut me off so I will post from were it was vut off.

…I never said a council decided this but based it off of the writings from that time. For example: Pope Leo the Great writes to Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne (458/9):

“The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar, for the bishops and for the priests; when they were (still) lay people or lectors, they could freely take a wife and beget children. But once they have reached the ranks mentioned above, what had been permitted is no longer so.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

In the Eastern Catholic Rite to this day is is allowed for married men to become priests, but they are not allowed to be priest and then marry, and they are not allowed to be bishops if married. As for the Op question when was it tradition to not allow priest to marry I would say and did say since Christ and the Apostles since I have not seen any record of Priests taking wives but more laymen who were married previous to there ordination into the priesthood. I haven’t seen any evidence to support that a priest could take a wife after being ordained to such a office.

 

[Janet1983]

Christ Himself maybe? And His Apostles who left their wives and followed Him, I would think.

Well there were married church leaders in Early Christianity… why else would there be a restriction to one wife?

 

[Janet1983]

St. Paul remained celibate his entire life because God called him to that…

Well Peter didn’t…

Mark 1:29-31
And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.

Celibacy is a “tradition” (not “Tradition”) and subject to change… Early Christians did not have a problem with it… They were regulated to one wife, but that was about it…

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

These verses do not say that church leaders have to be married, but they do not forbid them from being married either…
Celibacy is definitely allowed for church leaders and in some cases even encouraged in the Bible… There is however no absolute requirement in Scripture… that is just a tradition…
The early Christian churches did probably have some cases of celibacy, but not on the large scale as it is today (100%). The requirement for church leaders to remain celibate was not written down until the councils of Elvira (A.D. 306) and Carthage (A.D. 390).
Scripture does encourage it, but it is not demanded… Marriage of church leaders is permissive, but not a must…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

There’s an interesting encyclical (or some kind of ecclesial document) found in *Denizger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma *from the 200’s. At that time the Church allowed married Priests; however, they were required to remain celebate. The encyclical goes into detail on why this is required, and speaks as if it was the common practice of the Church. In fact, if I recall correctly, the Pope is condemning those married Priests who are not remaining celebate. I think that was the purpose of the letter.

If I have some time later I’ll look it up and post it.

 

[gearhead]

Celibacy is a “tradition” (not “Tradition”) and subject to change… Early Christians did not have a problem with it… They were regulated to one wife, but that was about it…

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

These verses do not say that church leaders have to be married, but they do not forbid them from being married either…

Now that you mention it, it seems like they do say that church leaders have to be married. How exactly can someone be “the husband of one wife” while being the husband of no wives at all?

Or is this a case where the original Greek word is closer to “not a polygamist”?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Now that you mention it, it seems like they do say that church leaders have to be married. How exactly can someone be “the husband of one wife” while being the husband of no wives at all?

Or is this a case where the original Greek word is closer to “not a polygamist”?

If you read the writings of the early Church you can tell what this is referring to. It used to be considered a negative - a sign of weakness - for a man to marry a second time (after his wife died, for example). It might seem strange to us, but that is the way they thought. I’ve read it numerous times in the writings of the Church Fathers. So, when St. Paul says a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, I’m sure its because being married a second time was considered a sign of weakness.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As for the Apostles celibacy and evidence of it we can look to historical record. There is no dispute that Peter had a wife but He did not take a wife after Christ called Him and there is no written record of the other Apostles taking wives after or before they were called to follow Christ (I’m sure if there were they would have been presented as argument against the law of priestly celibacy).

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

We do not know if the other Apostles were married or not.

We all agree Christ was the messiah but we also can all agree Christ was the first Priest of the New Law and that with His life He set the standard for all clergy. Lets not forget the fact that celibacy and virginity are looked at as means to a higher dagree of Holiness in scripture.

Yet there is no such standard for all clergy.

Married men may be ordained to the diaconate in the Latin Church, the Byzantine Chruches have always had a tradition of ordaining married men to the secular diaconate and priesthood.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

If you read the writings of the early Church you can tell what this is referring to. It used to be considered a negative - a sign of weakness - for a man to marry a second time (after his wife died, for example).

Here’s St. Thomas’ article on the lawfulness of second marriages.

St. Thomas

Article 1. Whether a second marriage is lawful?

Objection 1. It would seem that a second marriage is unlawful. Because we should judge of things according to truth. Now Chrysostom [Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says that “to take a second husband is in truth fornication,” which is unlawful. Therefore neither is a second marriage lawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is not good is unlawful. Now Ambrose [On 1 Corinthians 7:40 and De Viduis] says that a second marriage is not good. Therefore it is unlawful.

Objection 3. Further, no one should be debarred from being present at such things as are becoming and lawful. Yet priests are debarred from being present at second marriages, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42). Therefore they are unlawful.

**Objection 4. **Further, no one incurs a penalty save for sin. Now a person incurs the penalty of irregularity on account of being married twice. Therefore a second marriage is unlawful.

**On the contrary, **We read of Abraham having contracted a second marriage (Genesis 25:1).

Further, the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:14): “I will . . . that the younger,” namely widows, “should marry, bear children.” Therefore second marriages are lawful.

I answer that, The marriage tie lasts only until death (Romans 7:2), wherefore at the death of either spouse the marriage tie ceases: and consequently when one dies the other is not hindered from marrying a second time on account of the previous marriage. Therefore not only second marriages are lawful, but even third and so on.

Reply to Objection 1. Chrysostom is speaking in reference to the cause which is wont at times to incite a person to a second marriage, namely concupiscence which incites also to fornication.

Reply to Objection 2. A second marriage is stated not to be good, not that it is unlawful, but because it lacks the honor of the signification which is in a first marriage, where one husband has one wife, as in the case of Christ and the Church.

Reply to Objection 3. Men who are consecrated to Divine things are debarred not only from unlawful things, but even from things which have any appearance of turpitude; and consequently they are debarred from second marriages, which lack the decorum which was in a first marriage.

Reply to Objection 4. Irregularity is not always incurred on account of a sin, and may be incurred through a defect in a sacrament “Defectus sacramenti,” i.e. defect of signification; Cf. 2, Objection 3]. Hence the argument is not to the point.

 

[Brendan]

Now that you mention it, it seems like they do say that church leaders have to be married. How exactly can someone be “the husband of one wife” while being the husband of no wives at all?

Or is this a case where the original Greek word is closer to “not a polygamist”?

The Greek is actually in the negaitive sense, in that the priest should have no more than one wife “but one wife” would be a good translation.

In just the same way that the next sentence about raising their children doesn’t mean that you can’t ordain a man to the priesthood until they have more than one child (the Greek is plural)

 

[Heliotropium]

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

We do not know if the other Apostles were married or not.

Yet there is no such standard for all clergy.

Married men may be ordained to the diaconate in the Latin Church, the Byzantine Chruches have always had a tradition of ordaining married men to the secular diaconate and priesthood.

Well if there is no mention of them being married then I logically take the position that they weren’t and am not going to take the position of “what if” I understand that married men may be ordained in fact I never argued against that. The original OP question is when was it decided the Priest (meaning ones who are already ordained) could not get married. I base my decision on what have seen from history, and that is it was never allowed for already ordained clergy to take a wife but that exceptions were made and are made for men who married previous to being ordained.

 

[gearhead]

The Greek is actually in the negaitive sense, in that the priest should have no more than one wife “but one wife” would be a good translation.

Fair enough. “One wife” doesn’t include zero wives, but “no more than one” does.

Works for me.