Q. How could Paul command in 1 Tim. 3: 1-2 that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, and for the Apostles to have handed down a tradition that teaches that priests and Bishops do not have to be married, or worse, are forbidden to be?!
BFHU: I can see how you read the passage as commanding marriage but that is simply your interpretation. It could also be interpreted as “no more than one wife”. We know that priests and bishops were as first drawn from the married men. But Jesus gave the leaders of His Church the authority to bind and loose and even at the very birth of the Church celibacy began to be practiced even by the married. Why Celibacy? Priests and bishops were needed. The Church did not have the leisure to await the next generation before ordaining priests and bishops. So these were first taken from among the married. But they gave up conjugal rights. Jewish priests had to abstain from sex before offering sacrifice which was infrequent for any one priest. But the Christian priests offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice every day so celibacy became the norm.Why Can’t Catholic Priests Get Married?
Q. You mentioned several Catholic doctrines that supposedly do not have refutations.
BFHU: I never said there are no refutation for Catholic Doctrines. Protestants, athiests etc. try to refute Catholic doctrine all the time.
Q. The whole notion that the Catholic Church is handing down oral teaching that is parallel to the Bible and comes directly from the Apostles is false.
BFHU:Why? Do you have scripture to support this opinion?
Q. The early church quoted the scriptures to support the authority of what they said. So much so that we can reproduce the entire New Testament from their writings alone, save for about eleven verses.
BFHU: And this proves that Catholic oral teaching is not in line with scripture? How so?
Q. 1 Tim. 4: 1-3 where Paul warns of some who would depart from the faith, forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats.
BFHU:The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry. All are free to choose marriage if that is what they believe is God’s will for their vocation. If a man chooses to become a priest he may not marry after his ordination. Does our culture forbid anyone from being a physician? No. But not just anyone can set up a medical practice. They must meet certain criteria. So it is with the priesthood. This line of reasoning to condemn the Catholic Church and a celibate priesthood is ridiculous. Besides our practice aligns with Scripture:
Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Q. The question I would like to point out to you is, were these early church leaders quoting these scriptures in their letters back and forth to one another openly and saving these letters for posterity, while, in the back rooms, passing on the oral tradition that we can’t eat meat on Friday and priests and Bishops cannot marry???
BFHU: You misunderstand because of lack of knowledge of the Catholic Faith. Both not eating meat on Fridays and priestly celibacy are merely disciplines they are not on the same level at all as dogma or doctrine or scripture. They are rules of the Church that can be changed when necessary. We are no longer required to abstain from meat on Fridays and there are some rites in the Catholic Church that still ordain married men. And it is theoretically possible that the rule could change and all rites could ordain married men. But in general, we prefer to imitate Christ in this matter and ordain to the priesthood, “eunuchs for the Kingdom of God”.
Q. Is it possible to reconcile these facts, or to continue to believe that the Catholic religion has not tried to make laws for God or taught an oral tradition that can not possibly be from the Apostles, or the early church leaders???
BFHU:Where does Scripture say that the leaders of the Church are bound only to the rules of the Apostles? Where does the scripture teach sola scriptura? These are traditions of men. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Q. More specifically, regarding some of the other doctrines you mentioned. The scriptures plainly say that Joseph took Mary to Himself but did not “know her” until after she gave birth to her firstborn Son. (Matt. 1: 18-25). I am not inferring anything here; rather the scripture clearly implies that he did eventually know her.
BFHU:I understand why you interpret this this way. But it is not imperative to always interpret “until” the way you are. Because Scripture does NOT actually affirm that Joseph “knew Mary”. This is merely a later Protestant interpretation.
What Did the Reformers believe about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
I Sam 15:35 Samuel did not see Saul again until</strong> the day of his death;
2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.
Did Samuel see Saul after his death? Or did Michal have children after her death? Scripture is not so uniform in its use of “until” as Protestants might think so using it to prove that Joseph knew Mary is futile.
Hello BFHU,
I appreciate your comments. I also appreciate your taking the time to address many of mine. I will be very brief here because I have very little time, but I would like to give a more detailed response and ask a few more questions in the near future. First let me say that I am not a Protestant; please do not refer to me as one. I am a Christian only, a member of Christ’s church. I am thanking you ahead of time for refraining.
Right now I would just like to ask you how you can arrive at the notion that 1 Tim 3: 1-2 can be interpreted as simply saying a bishop may have no more than one wife, when clearly he could have said it that way but chose to say that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. The only way we may arrive at your conclusion is to violate laws of language and logic. There is absolutely no indication here that an unmarried man may be a bishop. Certainly, the author of language and communication is able to do that which He invented. If we may interpret in this way, we can arrive at any conclusion we desire. My own mother for instance claims that this passage simply means that a person must not have more than one spouse, so that even women may be bishops. She takes the same liberties that the early Catholic authorities did.
Consider the passage you quoted in Matt. 19: 12, there is absolutely no indication that Jesus is speaking of forbidding bishops to marry. Your application of it to justify Catholic Tradition forbidding bishops to marry is itself unjustifiable. Furthermore, you claim to agree that even the Apostles could not alter the Faith they had delivered, then claim that the Catholic Church some how has authorization to alter the mandatory qualifications for the overseers of the church! All of this without any convincing way to demonstrate that the ones who did such things were not the very men Paul warned about in 1 Tim. 4:1-3.
BFHU:I understand why you interpret this this way. But it is not imperative to always interpret “until” the way you are. Because Scripture does NOT actually affirm that Joseph “knew Mary”. This is merely a later Protestant interpretation
I Sam 15:35 Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death;
2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.
Did Samuel see Saul after his death? Or did Michal have children after her death? Scripture is not so uniform in its use of “until” as Protestants might think so using it to prove that Joseph knew Mary is futile
Joe:
Hello BFHU,
You say that it is not imperative to always interpret “until” in the way that is natural and seemingly obvious in the context of Matt. 1: 24-25. I agree one hundred percent! Words are equivocal and take on the meaning that the context establishes. For example, in John chapter 5: 25 Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.” This is not speaking of hearing only. Here He means that they will hear, believe, and be in subjection to what He has said, then they will receive life. However, in Mark 4: 11-12 He says, “And He said to them, ‘To you it has been given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12. so that “Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.”” In this context, he is speaking about hearing only, without believing or being in subjection to what He has said. Even though they technically hear His voice, He does not forgive their sins. If I were to establish the meaning of the word hear in this context and then transplant that meaning to the passage in John 5, not only would I be dead wrong, I would be lost.
To go to the context of the Samuel passages to establish the meaning of the word “until”, and then transplant that meaning to it’s use in Matt 1 in order to cling to the traditions of men, is not only illegitimate, it is also wresting with the Scriptures unto your own destruction. This is not an “interpretation” of the text, as you claim, but rather a manipulation of the text. If we desire to interpret either or both of the Samuel passages to say never again in their life, we may be able to do so without trouble. However, in Matt 1 the best we may do is to say that Joseph did not know her during her pregnancy with Jesus. In order for us to say that here, the Spirit is revealing that Joseph never knew Mary throughout their lives together, we must add something to the text that simply isn’t there, specifically that he did not know her until the day she died. Furthermore, we must remove something that is there, the part about him not knowing her until Jesus was born.
It is thus established that the clear implication here is that Joseph did indeed know her after Jesus was born. And, why not? She was His wife! It would not be sin. Furthermore, all of the plain passages of Scripture that demonstrates that Jesus had brothers and sisters reinforces this conviction. To deny all of this, you must twist many passages in order to hang on to other doctrine that contradicts Scriptural teaching regarding the nature of man and sin, and comes from obscure men. This is dangerous. I will elaborate more on this soon.
Dear Joe,
“It is thus established that the clear implication here is that Joseph did indeed know her after Jesus was born” –Joseph Duran
Exactly, it is ONLY an implication. The verses that talk about Jesus’ brothers and sisters prove nothing either unless you are willing to concede that St. Paul wrote all his epistles to his siblings alone.
The Protestant interpretation is not bad or intrinsically wrong regarding all of these verses. But neither is the Catholic interpretation. Who were the Brothers and Sisters of Jesus? So we are left with two legitimate interpretations. Extra biblical writings affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. You can discount these and the faith of the ancient Christian religions if you choose to. But are you sure that your interpretation is infallible? Your pastor’s? The books or teachers from which you have learned? If not why do you trust them? How do you know they are not the “traditions of men?” Even Luther and Calvin believed int he perpetual virginity of Mary. By whose authority do you declare that your interpretation is the one and only one that could possibly be correct?
The reason I entered the Catholic Church ten years ago was because when I looked at what the earliest Christians believed, those who were taught by the disciples of Jesus I found that they believed in Catholic doctrines! Protestant doctrines were nowhere to be found except in those heretical sects who also believed other doctrines that absolutely no self respecting Protestant would ever affirm. So I can’t prove anything to you but I will take my chances with the most ancient faith that is totally in line with scripture.
Hello BFHU,
Thank you for continuing to be kind; a lot of people get angry by this point in a conversation that challenges them on such a fundamental level. Let me reiterate that I am not a Protestant. We use no creed books. We follow Christ only by the words breathed by God, which are able to make us complete and thoroughly equipped unto every good work. Unless you doubt 2 Tim 3. Luther and Calvin may have had a few good ideas, but many of their beliefs were simply unfounded and even shameful.
I would love to address everything you have said here. Everything you have said is pertinent; this is a very important issue. The stakes are incredibly high. Unfortunately, I simply do not have time right now. I would at least like to remind you that even though you insist that there are no contradictions between the things taught by the Catholic Church, and what God says, there are plain and obvious contradictions.
Consider what Paul said regarding the qualifications for bishopric. God, through His Apostle, says that a bishop MUST BE the HUSBAND of one wife. The Catholic Church says that a bishop MUST NOT BE the HUSBAND of one wife. Clearly, these two statements are not the same. Indeed, they are contradictory, and therefore, to follow the Catholic Church on this is to NOT follow the tradition of the Apostles.
It may be easier for you to see this fact by considering these two statements. “In the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die.” And, “…ye shall NOT surely die.” Are these two statements really saying the same thing? If not, which one would you believe?
Sincerely concerned,
Joe
P.S. Additionally, you do not understand the history as well as you have been led to believe.
Dear Joe,
Adam and Eve didn’t actually die the moment they ate the forbidden fruit. Deeper mysteries are present than what a straight reading of the text brings you to.
You claim that scripture says:
a bishop MUST BE the HUSBAND of one wife
It says,
NIV
In this translation must modifies “blameless” as opposed to demanding that the bishop must be married and must only be married to one wife.
It is perfectly legitimate to read this as requiring the bishop to have no more than one wife IF married rather than that all bishops MUST be married.
In addition to this the actual Greek doesn’t even use the word MUST. Below are a Catholic translation, a literal Protestant translation and the translation from my Protestant Greek interlinear. English is in the NIV.
Douay-Reims translation
Young’s Literal Translation
–
Greek Interlinear translation
Dictionary Definition of behove
None of the definitions or synonyms of behove seem equivalent to MUST.
Joe, would you be willing to follow the TRUTH no matter where it might lead?
If so then ask Our Lord to lead you to the TRUE Church, the TRUE Faith that TRUTH Himself has founded.
Hello again bfhu,
of course I am willing to follow the truth wherever it may lead. I love the truth! This is why I am a Christian and a Christian only, rather than a Catholic or Protestant. The question is, are you willing to come to the truth?
First, let me ask you, are you saying then that God and Satan were in fact saying the same thing? Because, that is what you seem to be saying about both their statements and concerning the 1Tim. 3 passage, and the men you follow refusing men to marry. If you recognize the difference in the statements then you get my point. They are not even close to the same.
I notice that you seem to attempt to use the English translation you prefer, rather than the best understanding of the original Greek. That is fine. Definition number one begins, “To be necessary…” Definition number three begins, “…to be needful…” So yes, this word does indeed carry an imperative meaning.
Even if you want to go strictly with definition number two, it says, “to be worthwhile to, as for personal profit or advantage: It would behoove you to be nicer to those who could help you.
–verb (used without object)”
Tell me, I guess your name is Pam (I hope it is alright for me to call you that), if the Holy Spirit says that it is good to do this and we know to do good and we do it not (though we are able), what do you call that? James says it is sin. If the men you follow refuse a bishop to marry, how much worse is that? Especially when God says that, it is better and profitable for him to marry?
Consider carefully what the definition says, “It would behoove you to be nicer to those who could help you.” If God said this, and certainly, He has said many things like it, then men came along and said, “You CANNOT be nicer to those who could help you,” would they be teaching God’s Word? Even if God says merely that a bishop SHOULD be the husband of one wife (The modifier applies to the entire list of qualifications, not just to being blameless.), and the men you believe refuse bishops to marry, how can you say that they are saying the same thing that God says, or that they are following the Apostle’s tradition (teaching)?
Even if all God said was that it behooves a bishop to be the husband of one wife, and you interpret that as “it’s alright to,” and if a bishop desires to take a wife, then what man may refuse him? So, even if that was all God said we would have the following:
God said that a bishop may marry.
Certain men said that a bishop may NOT marry.
Who are we to believe? Hmmm…it’s not hard for me to figure out. Do you still say that there is no contradiction? Moreover, as Paul said to the bishops of Ephesus, that AFTER HIS DEPARTURE savage wolves would come in AMONG THEM, not sparing the flock, and that FROM AMONG THEM (the bishops, men who could claim a lineage back to those who ordained them and ultimately the Apostles) men would rise up, speaking perverse things, and draw away the disciples after themselves (Acts 20: 17-32); the men you follow seek to confuse God’s Word to establish their own authority. He also prophesied to Timothy, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2. speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1Tim. 4: 1-3).”
You gave a poor answer to this point earlier. You claimed that the Roman Catholic Tradition does not refuse men to marry because they do not have to be bishops. You implied that if they choose to be bishops, they choose not to marry. You said that not all men qualify to be doctors either. You do err not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. He was speaking specifically about bishops when he said that it “behooves” them to be the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. He was speaking specifically about the qualifications of bishops when he said that they (should) be married. If it is a faithful saying that a bishop merely should be the husband of one wife, and a bishop desires to marry, and the men you believe in forbid it, how can you fail to see that they are contrary to God and fulfill Paul’s warning? How can they be following Paul’s teaching? How can you claim that the Catholic Tradition is not forbidding that man to marry, whom the Scriptures explicitly authorize to marry? Is this not a contradiction?
Clearly, you and the men you believe in are approaching the Scriptures as a lawyer seeking loopholes in a contract. You are not seeking to understand the Will of God, to bring yourself into subjection to Him; rather, you are seeking to confuse the matter in order to escape the doctrines kept by the Scripture, to “liberate” yourself from God. They seem to have done so a little at a time through several hundred years of history. You seem to do so because their religion makes you feel good, and you seem to think that we have been commanded that if we cannot prove something false to our satisfaction, we are free to believe whatever we will, rather than to prove that it is good and to hold only to that.
Thank you for your time.
Pam, Blessings to you! Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth! I lift you in prayer as you are a constant witness to our Lord and our Faith! I praise the Holy Spirit for his guidance in your life and your words. You are truly kind and constantly polite to all you come at you! Praise to our King as his servants do His good works here on earth! May your tongue, your words and your mind continue to be a blessing to all that you reach in this world. Trust me you bring many to Him by your example! Peace be with you!
Thanks Ally for your encouragement and prayers.
Very nicely said Joseph.
Dear Justin,
thank you for your encouragement. I must admit that I do often err in my way of saying things. At times, I have come across as harsh and unloving. I want it to be clear that I do love all people and want desperately for them to come to God in truth. It is the truth that sanctifies (John 17: 17) and IF WE CONTINUE IN HIS WORDS we will be His disciples in deed, and we will know the truth, and THE TRUTH WILL MAKE US FREE (John 8: 31-32). I am trying to choose my words more carefully in my writing to people so as not to get in the way of Him who loves them.
Concerning the passage at 1Timothy 3: 1-7, speaking of the qualifications of bishopric, it has come to my awareness that the original Greek is significantly more rigid than I have alluded to in my comment above. The original Greek indicates that a man must possess, and continue to possess, all of the qualifications set forth in the passage before being considered for the candidacy for bishopric. The verb in the original Greek is not an Imperative, as an imperative commands a change from one state to another, i.e. from being unmarried to being married. He is not commanding unmarried Bishops to get married. The verb in the Greek is a Present Active Indicative, which is a statement that the traits discussed must already be possessed and must continue to be possessed by any candidate for the office of bishopric. In my statement above, I granted her the definition of the word used in the English translation that she preferred just to make a point. I just want to be clear on that.
Thanks again Justin, and would you mind terribly my asking if you are a Christian?