A Bishop must be the husband of one wife?


#1

In 1st Tim. 3:2,4-5, what am I supposed to think of this? Are Bishops really supposed to be married? The reason I ask is that a Fundamentalist had brought that up and I am not to sure what to think of this? Any help on this postion would be muchly appreciated.


#2

It doesn’t mean he HAS to be married, just that he can’t be married to more than one woman. Furthermore, i’m not sure that the Church hierarchy was as such back then that the term bishop means the same thing in that sense. Don’t quote me on that, though. :thumbsup:


#3

Some people use this in their objection to priestly celibacy; that cannot be proven in the text. Paul here notes that a bishop must have only have one wife. He doesn’t say in any way that a bishop must be married–it’s not in the text at all.


#4

[quote=Montie Claunch]In 1st Tim. 3:2,4-5, what am I supposed to think of this? Are Bishops really supposed to be married? The reason I ask is that a Fundamentalist had brought that up and I am not to sure what to think of this? Any help on this postion would be muchly appreciated.
[/quote]

Paul was a bishop. He didn’t have a wife. Case closed. Aaach! Gimme a break!


#5

I had many objections to re-joining the Catholic Church and leaving a “Bible Only” denomination. This was one of the very things I had an issue with.

The very knowledgeable priest who guided my wife and I back was able to answer this and many other objections for us.

His explanation of this passage was that if a man is widowed, and then joins the clergy, he can only have been the husband of one wife. He cannot be widowed, remarry, have the misfortune of being widowed a second time, and then become a bishop (and the Church extends this to include the priesthood as well).

The reason is that if a man must remarry a second time after widowhood (rather than “burn with lust” - 1 Cor 7:8-9), he is not deemed to be a man with any other vocation other than marriage, and may lack the self control required for the celibate life.

I hope your Fundamentalist friend can see the wisdom of the Church’s interpretation, because it may be just one of a few remaining obstacles impeding him/her to come into the true Church that Christ founded. After all, his interpretation is just that - his own. What ever it is, if it differs from the Church, it can’t be right!


#6

Paul was a Bishop?? I know he was an Apostle. Does that mean all the Apostles were Bishops?

And Peter was married, so does that mean our Popes should be married?

One cannot argue or reason with “the Bible only” theology of most protestants because they are coming from a totally different point of reference. If they really want to know, they need to get an explanation from an Apologist, ask a Priest, or write in to some column that hosts questions and answers in a Catholic publication.

I like the answer from captaincoog, who got his answer from a priest, who handled the question appropriately.


#7

[quote=Montie Claunch]In 1st Tim. 3:2,4-5, what am I supposed to think of this? Are Bishops really supposed to be married? The reason I ask is that a Fundamentalist had brought that up and I am not to sure what to think of this? Any help on this postion would be muchly appreciated.
[/quote]

Montie!
When are you gonna learn to look in the Library and use the search feature in the forums before posting every question somebody asks you? :cool:

If you had you’d have found THIS

Search before ya ask dude…LOL
Pax tecum,


#8

But Church Militant, if we were to use the search each and every time, what would we have to talk about? All we’d have to do is search and shut up. I much prefer to see old subjects in the forefront and read new thoughts or repeated thoughts on them than to talk about what kind of dog I have or what’s my opinion of women who wear make-up.

Please don’t take this as a mean statement, I wish you could hear my light hearted tone in this post.

:wink:


#9

St. Paul even says it’s better to be celibate (remember, St. Paul himself is celibate):

1 Cor.7:7 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. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 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. 33 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.

From CA:
catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!


#10

[quote=Loboto-Me]But Church Militant, if we were to use the search each and every time, what would we have to talk about? All we’d have to do is search and shut up. I much prefer to see old subjects in the forefront and read new thoughts or repeated thoughts on them than to talk about what kind of dog I have or what’s my opinion of women who wear make-up.

Please don’t take this as a mean statement, I wish you could hear my light hearted tone in this post.

:wink:
[/quote]

:thumbsup: Pretty much the way I meant mine as well.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.