When did the tradition of priests not marrying start?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deacon_Joseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Heliotropium said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is not logical. The logical path is to say that if it is not stated in the texts then we do not know.

The Scriptures do not contain everything that occurred so we can not take, logically, the absence of something as proof of anything.

We all agree here that the ordained have never been allowed to get married but that is not what you are talking about when you say that the Apostles were celibate.
 
gearhead said:
Fair enough. “One wife” doesn’t include zero wives, but “no more than one” does.

Works for me.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you did not do well at math in grade school. “Not more than one” includes zero.
 
ByzCath said:
This is not logical. The logical path is to say that if it is not stated in the texts then we do not know.

The Scriptures do not contain everything that occurred so we can not take, logically, the absence of something as proof of anything.
Click to expand...
Well since we weren’t there we can only go by what written record would show, and in the Scriptures as well as early Christian writings regarding celibacy and marriage I have not seen anyone raise that argument that since Peter was married and didn’t abstain from relations with his wife then why do they have to. Wither they had written account of Peter having relations with his wife, or oral tradition (not capital T) then it would have been addressed don’t you think? Since an example of the Apostles never having relations with wives has shown up then I will make the deduction that it did not happen. The other reason for why I believe it did not happen is because there is no mention of the other Apostles as having a wife, and since we both agree that ordained men cannot marry we would have to logically assume that the other Apostles except Peter were not married. If they weren’t married they would have to be celibate since premarital sex is not allowed, and since we both agree that once ordained they were not allowed to take wives. Also why would they mention Peter being married but not the rest?

I believe history shows that ordained men were not allowed to marry and thus had to be celibate, and that already married men who were allowed to be ordained were asked to be celibate but it was never “enforced” but taken as a tradition or a higher call of holiness. I believe the Apostles followed this call by imitating Christ example to the letter.
 
Heliotropium said:
Well since we weren’t there we can only go by what written record would show, and in the Scriptures as well as early Christian writings regarding celibacy and marriage I have not seen anyone raise that argument that since Peter was married and didn’t abstain from relations with his wife then why do they have to. Wither they had written account of Peter having relations with his wife, or oral tradition (not capital T) then it would have been addressed don’t you think? Since an example of the Apostles never having relations with wives has shown up then I will make the deduction that it did not happen. The other reason for why I believe it did not happen is because there is no mention of the other Apostles as having a wife, and since we both agree that ordained men cannot marry we would have to logically assume that the other Apostles except Peter were not married. If they weren’t married they would have to be celibate since premarital sex is not allowed, and since we both agree that once ordained they were not allowed to take wives. Also why would they mention Peter being married but not the rest?

I believe history shows that ordained men were not allowed to marry and thus had to be celibate, and that already married men who were allowed to be ordained were asked to be celibate but it was never “enforced” but taken as a tradition or a higher call of holiness. I believe the Apostles followed this call by imitating Christ example to the letter.
Click to expand...
Again, if it is not written then we can not know.

All you are doing is speculating, you can not know.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, period.

I do not know any other way to explain this.
 
Matthew 19:11-12
“Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”
 
Heliotropium said:
Well since we weren’t there we can only go by what written record would show, and in the Scriptures as well as early Christian writings regarding celibacy and marriage I have not seen anyone raise that argument that since Peter was married and didn’t abstain from relations with his wife then why do they have to. Wither they had written account of Peter having relations with his wife, or oral tradition (not capital T) then it would have been addressed don’t you think? Since an example of the Apostles never having relations with wives has shown up then I will make the deduction that it did not happen. The other reason for why I believe it did not happen is because there is no mention of the other Apostles as having a wife, and since we both agree that ordained men cannot marry we would have to logically assume that the other Apostles except Peter were not married.
Click to expand...
But I already noted one mention of the apostle’s wives. In 1 Corinthians 9:5-6, Paul refers to the wives of “the other apostles and brothers of the Lord”. He also states that he and Barnabas had the right “to take along a believing wife”, even if they didn’t choose to exercise that right.

Are Paul and Barnabas considered priests? I know that Peter and the other apostles were, but the argument could be made that they may have been married before they were ordained.

But in this passage, we have Paul, still unmarried when he was ordained, stating that he still has the right to marry.

What do you make of this?
 
No cleric (Bishop, Priest, Deacon) has a right to marry.

It was declared dogmatically by one of the early councils that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons can not contract new marriage. Marriage after ordination is heresy.

Married men being ordained bishops is possible; widowers are common enough in the Byantine Rite History, and a few men placed their wives into nunneries to be elligible.

A man to be ordained a deacon must be an upright member of the community, have had no more than one wife (in his lifetime).

A man to be ordained a priest must be a deacon, tho’ that wasn’t always the case. The conciliar era (300-1000 AD) changed that.

A man to be ordained a bishop must be a priest, tho a deacon may be elected, then doubly ordained, in some of the Apostolic Churches.

St Paul, tho, was celibate. Thecla was deaconess and secretary, not wife.
 
Aramis said:
A man to be ordained a deacon must be an upright member of the community, have had no more than one wife (in his lifetime).
Click to expand...
So if a man is widowed, and remarries, he can’t be ordained a deacon? I’m not aware that’s the case.
Aramis said:
A man to be ordained a bishop must be a priest, tho a deacon may be elected, then doubly ordained, in some of the Apostolic Churches.
Click to expand...
The other exception being the Pope, who could be ordained a bishop upon election if he is not one already.
Aramis said:
St Paul, tho, was celibate. Thecla was deaconess and secretary, not wife.
Click to expand...
We don’t know if Paul was unmarried all his life. Simply no info on that.
 
the non-canonical but not anathematized Journeys of Paul & Thecla makes it clear that Thecla clearly wasn’t St. Paul’s wife. He traveled without a wife. He himself speaks of his own celibacy in the epistles.
 
Aramis said:
the non-canonical but not anathematized Journeys of Paul & Thecla makes it clear that Thecla clearly wasn’t St. Paul’s wife. He traveled without a wife. He himself speaks of his own celibacy in the epistles.
Click to expand...
And while he did state he was unmarried and chose to be so deliberately, as I pointed out above, he also stated that he (and Barnabas) did have the right to take a wife.

Was he wrong?
 
gearhead said:
And while he did state he was unmarried and chose to be so deliberately, as I pointed out above, he also stated that he (and Barnabas) did have the right to take a wife.

Was he wrong?
Click to expand...
I am fairly sure that both Paul and Barnabas pre-date the dogmatic statement that the ordained can not marry.

So this is a moot point as it has no bearing on the issue being discussed.
 
Aramis said:
the non-canonical but not anathematized Journeys of Paul & Thecla makes it clear that Thecla clearly wasn’t St. Paul’s wife. He traveled without a wife. He himself speaks of his own celibacy in the epistles.
Click to expand...
He only speaks of his celibacy in 1 Corinthians.

He would have been widowed or divorced prior to writing that. So, again, simply, we have no idea if he was unmarried his entire life.
 
ByzCath said:
I am fairly sure that both Paul and Barnabas pre-date the dogmatic statement that the ordained can not marry.

So this is a moot point as it has no bearing on the issue being discussed.
Click to expand...
Indeed they do!
 
All of ya’ll are sooooo totally wrong. It was the year 1079 that priests were to not marry again. But it was not official until years later when priests had to really divorce their wives and leave their children. Even the pope was married! LOL. But anways…yes, as the person who started this thread, it was about Church property and stuff. Unfortunately, the Church wanted the priests’ assets to not pass down to their heir, but to the Church.

But look on the bright side, Christ encouraged celibacy,even St. Paul the Apostle.

Around the year 100 something if i could remember, the Eastern and Western Church fought over priestly celibacy. The Western Church was for celibacy, and the East, against celibacy. It’s ironic that monasticism began in the Eastern Church around the 300’s though. LOL
 
Tony9712262 said:
Around the year 100 something if i could remember, the Eastern and Western Church fought over priestly celibacy.
Click to expand...
There was no “Eastern and Western Church” around the year 100 something. There was just the Church.
 
diggerdomer said:
There was no “Eastern and Western Church” around the year 100 something. There was just the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes there was already. The Church back then was Eastern and Western, but One Church. And it still is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top