Are you serious??
Paul was fine with married Bishops. He simply didn't want polygamous Bishops being ordained.
A polygamous household is NOT the way a house should be ruled. Ergo, Paul wanted men who only had ONE wife - the way it was willed by GOD (Gen. 2:24).
With all of these discussions you are involved in, I can understand how you are losing track of the discussion between you & me, but you were contending that a bishop did not need to be married whereas I was citing scripture that explained why they should be married.
How you got off to polygamy was something I was trying to get back to point on what Paul said and it had nothing to do with making sure there were no polygamous bishops as if that was the reason why a bishop had to be a husband of one wife when Paul said in verse 5 that if they cannot manage their own household, how then can they manage the house of God.
I am sure the requirement for a bishop to be a husband of one wife would keep out a polygamous sinner, but for them to be in that assembly and even considered, they would have had to been saved and to repent of that sinful lifestyle or they could not even be in the assembly to even be considered for bishop.
I am sure that it was a concern to avoid a polygamous bishop, but Paul stated why a bishop should be a husband of one wife and that was about showing he can manage his own house to show he can manage the House of God as Paul said in verse 5.
1 Timothy 3:1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
WRONG.
As I told you before - Heb. 7:25 says in NO uncertain terms that Jesus livers FOREVER to make intercession for us.
Does this mean that it is NOT "finished"?? OR, is this referring to OUR cooperation with God's grace?
So had Jesus lied on the cross? No. Then you applying Him making intercessions for us as presenting His one time sacrifice for sins to apply "again" to believers through the Mass has nothing to do with Him interceding on our behalf. By your saying that it does apply is giving certain terms in how Jesus makes intercessions for us... ie only in the Mass and that is
WRONG.
Prayer to Him, confessing your sins to Him does it, brother. Not the Mass.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Looking to a ritual to do it is akin to saying you do not believe confessing to Him will bring the promise from His words that you will be forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness.
You have to decide between His words in the N.T. that His disciples wants us to have and believe and the words of the RCC which did not develop their catechism until many hundreds of years later which none of the disciples have taught in the way the RCC is teaching communion to be used for.
The RCC using what Jesus said to the Pharisees rather than what He had said to His disciples should lead you to wonder if the RCC has it wrong.