1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Page 2

**JharekCarnelian** · #16 Sep 2, '12, 6:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by studychristian

Just wondering....

Don't Catholic's believe that priests shouldn't Marry?

Don't Catholics also believe to not eat fish on Fridays?

1 Timothy 4:3 say both these things are false doctrines

As neither of these are doctrines but disciplines the relevance of the scripture you quote is debatable. Also others have pointed out to that the conditions for celibacy vary from Church to Church within the wider Catholic communion, also Catholics (where the discipline is in force ,such as in the UK) are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays. I suggest you learn what we actually believe not what others have told you what they would suppose we believe.

ahs · #17 Sep 2, '12, 2:01 pm

Regarding fasting, from here:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...ce-during-lent

Fasting is a biblical discipline that can be defended from both the Old and the New Testament. Christ expected his disciples to fast (Mt 9:14-15) and issued instructions for how they should do so (Mt 6:16-18). Catholics follow this pattern...

Abstinence from certain foods is also a biblical discipline. In Daniel 10:2-3 we read, "In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks." Catholics use a practice similar to Daniel's when, as a way of commemorating Christ's Crucifixion on a Friday, they abstain from eating meat on that day of the week during Lent. The only kind of flesh they eat on Friday is fish, which is a symbol of Christ. (not just during Lent, but all Fridays, in ,any parts of the world)

Christ expected and instructed His disciples to fast. Who are we to ignore that or put ourselves above it?

ahs · #18 Sep 2, '12, 2:15 pm

Regarding Priestly Celibacy, from here:
(Karl Keeting, Celibacy and the Priesthood, Catholic Answers Tract)

So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were "not really called" to that vocation. The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.

Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.

Both Christ and Paul were celibate, and both praised celibacy for the sake of tthe Kingdom. Who are we to condemn those who choose celibacy?

By the way, can you please explain how someone can be forbidden from something that he/she has voluntarily given up?

joe370 · #19 Sep 2, '12, 5:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by studychristian

Just wondering....

Don't Catholic's believe that priests shouldn't Marry?

Don't Catholics also believe to not eat fish on Fridays?

1 Timothy 4:3 say both these things are false doctrines

It refers to the 1st century false asceticism that forbade marriage in general. It had nothing to do with the priesthood. One of the Sacraments of the church is Matrimony; it's celebrated, not frowned upon.

Fasting is very scriptural which is why the church promotes it on certain prescribed days of the year. Other than that a catholic can pretty much eat whatever...