/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

This doesn't even negate the Cathodox view. The whole celibate clergy rule can easily be changed, so this is a literal non problem. What is even more unusual is the fact that this statement ignores Paul himself prefers himself to be personally celibate and as an Apostle, his authority is higher than even a bishop

>>718170

Then why have they said you have to be celibate for the last 1700 years if it's sso easy ro change?

apostle =/= bishop. Paul wasn't a leader of a church, some of the other apostles were both.

>>718174

Because they don't want to change it.

>Paul wasn't a leader of a church

But he was the founder of countless Churches in many cities and he gave them instruction as would be the role of a Bishop.

>>718174

Wrong, I said the Apostles are above bishops, so you essentially made a strawman of my point.

They also function as co-regeants with Christ. This makes sense because Acts emphasize the importance of having 12 Apostles and how they are the ones alongside elders that settle the Gentile issue in Acts15. So if any, what this shows is that clergymen can opt for celibacy if they so choose and clearly marriage is not mandantory for servicing in that position.

Timothy also addresses specific pastoral contexts which differ from later rulings on priestly celibacy. Hence you are literally making a non argument

>>718176

Why not? It clearly says they mist be married.

Well he wasn't the leader of any of them.

>>718177

So the requirements of a bishop are different than an apostle.

I never said all clergymen have to be married, but it clearly says bishops so.

>>718178

Only Paul and I think Barnabas weren't married, all the rest were

>>718176

>>718177

>>718178

Also it has other requirements like sober, apt to teach, not a brawler, not covetous. Are those also not required? They're as clear as the needing marriage requirement.

>>718186

Not exactly true as Apostles are definitely not normal laymen and exercise authority in church governance, so they are literally at the least the highest class of clergy based on the NT texts.

Also, as Timothy is directed at specific pastoral situations, that "married" requirement cannot be pressed to entail a prohibition of celibate clergy or even bishops because by that logic, Paul is being hypocritical. Possibly even James who church fathers like Eusebius considers celibate.

>>718170

>The whole celibate clergy rule can easily be changed

Then it must not be a divine rule, so it can also be safely ignored

>>718189

Except guess what? the church can bind and loose, otherwise Jesus lied to the apostles and disciples

>>718188

And again this is a lost for the requirements of a bishop, not an apostle

>cannot be pressed to entail a prohibition of celibate clergy

Then what else does it mean? It literally says they must have a wife and children

>Paul is being hypocritical

Again he isn't a bishop, but even if it was he could just be in sin.

>>718195

Sorry anon, I'm a Christian, so I can't believe a man has more authority than God. Maybe Greek paganism is for you, they also had men fundamentally changing the religion at will. I mean, you think the pope has the authority to replace Jesus with Serapis (who are you to tell the pope what he can and can't do?), so you're basically there already.

>>718186

>Are those also not required

>Also

Nice wording.

They are required as BASELINES.

If you're not a brawler, that's great. But right now your argument is:

"The bible says you must not be a brawler to be a priest. So if you're peaceful(The opposite of being a brawler), you don't fulfill the requirements because you're doing more than what they're asking for".

>>718198

This does not follow, as Apostles and Bishops are clergy, which entails that clergy can be celibate and there is no pentalty for such. Also, Paul is explicit he prefers celibacy but accepts marriage as an option. Had your interpretation be taken, that implies Paul contradicted himself.

Hence Timothy can either mean just some general requirement to look for in a good candidate which should also be noted, focuses more on the ability to rule and maintain order which should be prioritized over whether or not the individual is married or not, as that is the reasoning.

What you are doing is to ignore Paul's core requirement and instead focusing on his statement on a bishop being a husband. That aspect would be clearly optional rather than of necessity

>>718199

Yup let's ignore context!

>>718199

>a man has more authority than God

That was never claimed so stop dishonestly bearing false witness. God gives authority to the Church. It's hypocritical to claim God commanded bishops to marry and then turn around and claim the authority given by God can't rule a vow of celibacy for priests in order for disipline when Paul said it was better.

>>718200

>They are required as BASELINES.

No, they're comlletely required. It says they must not be or be certain things. It's not a recommendation otherwise it would say they should, not must.

>The bible says you must not be a brawler to be a priest. So if you're peaceful(The opposite of being a brawler), you don't fulfill the requirements because you're doing more than what they're asking for".

How is that at all my argument?

>>718204

You're claiming men can dispense with divine rules at will so yes that's exactly what you're claiming

>>718204

>can't rule a vow of celibacy for priests in order for disipline when Paul said it was better.

Again it says they have to be married with children and gives the reason "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)". Non-bishops can choose to be celibate, but for bishops it's not a choice.

>>718205

For marriage it specificcaly points that the bishop must be the husband of one wife, not that he must be a husband. This was to guide caution over decisions of picking bishops over new churches because many pagans practiced polygamy.

>>718206

I guess the apostles weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit and just dispense divine rules at will then.

>>718205

>No, they're comlletely required

Yes they're required what I just said.

>It's not a recommendation

What? When did I say that it was a "recommendation"? Do you not know what a "baseline" is, is that why you misunderstand?

>How is that at all my argument?

1 Corinthians 7. Read it: celibacy is better than marriage, which in turn is better than falling to lust.

>>718201

>Had your interpretation be taken, that implies Paul contradicted himself.

No, it doesn't because paul isn't a bishop.

>prefers celibacy but accepts marriage as an option

cathlodox don't even let bishops get married even of they want to(I think greek orthodox do though if they were married before, but east orthodox don't)

>>718201

>That aspect would be clearly optional rather than of necessity

No it isn't, it says they must be married. That's not a choice.

>>718207

The reason takes more precedence than marriage as it shows the core of what Paul is looking for. Hence for those who hate clerical celibacy which Paul and James practiced, they have to make two Apostles contradict themselves and even twist Paul's words in Timothy.

For Paul in Timothy wants to stress a person who has good management, not that marriage is a necessity for bishops

>>718207

>Again it says they have to be married with children

No it doesn't. In plain English it says a married candidate must have only one wife if married, and disciplined children if any.

>but for bishops it's not a choice

Those are conditions for electing bishops from the local populace for new churches, not permanent instruction. Stop ignoring the rest of what Timothy says.

>>718211

>What? When did I say that it was a "recommendation"? Do you not know what a "baseline" is, is that why you misunderstand?

So do bishops have to be married then?

>1 Corinthians 7. Read it: celibacy is better than marriage, which in turn is better than falling to lust.

celibacy is better if you're not in a position that requires you to be married. If you're not a bishop then you can choose celibacy, because you're not in a position that says you must be married.

>>718212

>cathlodox don't even let bishops get married even of they want to

Because discipline is much more important for a Bishop and Priest. If you can't make the vow, it's obviously not your calling.

>>718212

Paul isnt but he still functions in a clerical capacity as bishops do as those like James who is also celibate does. As long as clerical celibacy isnt condemned, then Cathodox requirements for that for disciplinary and practical reasons cannot be taken as opposing Paul.

And no. The whole EO and Eastern Caths allow married clergy. So that rules them out of this. And Rome simply enforces the rule out of practicality, not because of dogmatic reasons. So the argument fails

>>718216

It says they have to be "the husband of one wife" not "the husband of one wife if married" and "having his children in subjection with all gravity;" not "If having children"

>Those are conditions for electing bishops from the local populace for new churches, not permanent instruction. Stop ignoring the rest of what Timothy says.

So if a bishop becomes a drunkard, brawler, etc. that goes against the lost then is that fine? Also cathlodox elect bishops that weren't married ro begin with.

>>718217

Which makes no sense when Paul does administrative duties a bishop would had done too. James is also celibate and is a bishop. So your argument is based on eisegesis and strawman

>>718218

>Because discipline is much more important for a Bishop and Priest.

Nope, it gives the reason why "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"

>>718222

Again Paul wasn't rhe leaded of a church

>James is also celibate and is a bishop.

It never says James was celibate

>>718221

>It says they have to be "the husband of one wife" not "the husband of one wife if married" and "having his children in subjection with all gravity;" not "If having children"

When you ignore conext, sure. Cherrypicking scripture to force literalisms that aren't there is the tactic of the atheist.

>>718223

And if he has no house? Then Paul is right. A man who isn't distracted with worldly things can be anxious to God.

>>718210

Gregory VII was an apostle and his decree was divine revelation? Who knew

>>718225

Well then is "not a brawler" only apply if they're already not a brawler? That's retarded. Or "sober" if they're already sober. And the context doesn't change it, catholics always do that, say it's out if context when the context doesn't change anything. Also it gives the requirements also in Titus 1

>>718210

>not that he must be a husband.

Yes it does. It says he has to have ONE wife. That means not zero and not two or more.

>>718224

James is never stated to be married. Other disciples' marriages are mentioned

And also Paul is the leader and even coregeant with Christ as Apostle. So your statement here is pointless

See for instance Wenkel's "Kingship of the 12 Apostles"

>>718227

>deliberately misses the point

>>718229

>Well then is "not a brawler" only apply if they're already not a brawler? That's retarded.

But they're not quantified like marriage was. Marriage was limited to one wife, but why specify at all if the requirement was marriage in total?

>>718231

But it doesn't say that. It says he must not be an adulterer hence the necessity of clarifying monogamy, otherwise, why mention it.

>>718233

It neaver says he isn't. Also Paul seems to be saying only him and Barnabas weren't married

5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

>>718234

>Marriage was limited to one wife, but why specify at all if the requirement was marriage in total?

Because they're also not allowed to have more. If they are polygamous they also can't be a bishop

>But it doesn't say that. It says he must not be an adulterer hence the necessity of clarifying monogamy, otherwise, why mention it.

see above

>>718235

It isnt because it probably inst there. Other Apostles being married is at least mentioned but for James of Jerusalem this isnt and the earliest traditions take him as celibate such as Eusebius' observations. Hence at least James was celibate and functioned as a bishop.

The verse you quoted also implies nothing about James or even give a statement on whether other Apostles are married. It at best states Paul and Barnabas were celibate.

Even then as I explained, Paul takes on the function of a bishop given his role of administration which is what he seeks in bishops

>>718236

>nowadays mandatory celibacy is contributing to some of the big issues that the Church is having right now.

Like what?

Please don't say what I think you're going to say…

>>718244

Not enough priests

The thing that you think I'm going to say

>>718246

>Not enough priests

Okay, fair.

>>718248

and PEDOPHILIA BABY

Only reason they call for celibate clergy is so they can sneak in homosexuals to be cappos in their gay mafia.

nice doggo