Did Peter have a Wife & Children?

[Mystophilus]

My point is many Non-Catholics use this “widely-accepted translation” to “prove” Peter had a wife during the time he was with Jesus. Whether or not the 20+ versions of the bible use “wife” or “woman” is irrelevant. They don’t prove it one way or another (including the NAB).

You are correct in saying that they do not prove it. History, however, is not about proof, but rather about the balance of probabilities. In much the same way, those Bible versions are relevant: 20+ different translation boards all independently approving the same translation is a strong recommendation for the linguistic accuracy of that translation. The significance of the NAB is greater, as regards this discussion, in that its translation is validated by the Roman Catholic Church.

Further on the Catholic Church, one should note what the voice of tradition has to say:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm:

Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxi) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent.

The Cath.Enc is not completely correct on that last point, considering that the Acts of Peter does mention Peter’s wife and daughter. Thus, we have testimonies of Peter’s wife having been a Christian from the Acts, in the late C2nd, from Clement, in the late C2nd/early C3rd, and from Eusebius, in the late C3rd/early C4th. No other ancient authority contradicts these.

Thus, from a historical perspective, the balance of testimony is well on the side of his having had a Christian wife, which is quite possibly why the NAB editors were unafraid to use ‘wife’ in that passage.

Frankly, I fear that you might be allowing your analysis of the historical and linguistic questions to be coloured by your concern that acknowledgement of the probability of Peter’s having had a wife might somehow compromise the faith of one billion Catholics.

What difference does it make to a Catholic if Peter had a wife and child? The Church does not hide the fact that early Christian clerics were allowed to marry, nor should it wish to.

 

[mo3]

Frankly, I fear that you might be allowing your analysis of the historical and linguistic questions to be coloured by your concern that acknowledgement of the probability of Peter’s having had a wife might somehow compromise the faith of one billion Catholics.

Your statement and fears are groundless because they are based on inaccuracy. I am not sure why, but you have either ignored or misunderstood my point. I never said or implied that Peter didn’t have a wife.
I said Peter didn’t have a wife “during the time he was with Jesus.”

 

[StMarkEofE]

Your statement and fears are groundless because they are based on inaccuracy. I am not sure why, but you have either ignored or misunderstood my point. I never said or implied that Peter didn’t have a wife.
I said Peter didn’t have a wife “during the time he was with Jesus.”

Do you know for sure? Would you bet your life on this? I believe that Peter brought his wife along with him during his Aposleship.

 

[thistle]

Your statement and fears are groundless because they are based on inaccuracy. I am not sure why, but you have either ignored or misunderstood my point. I never said or implied that Peter didn’t have a wife.
I said Peter didn’t have a wife “during the time he was with Jesus.”

newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

 

[patrick457]

Aside from the ‘Peter being a widower’ theory, It could be that Peter left his family at the time during Jesus’ ministry. After all, he said to Jesus, ‘We have abandoned all to follow you.’

Then maybe after Pentecost, Peter then converted his family then they followed him.

So, If Peter did have children, then if those children had descendants…
I just hope Dan Brown wouldn’t make a book on this one. He gave Jesus a go; i just hope he would leave Peter alone.

 

[MarioSr]

We know that Peter was an elder because he says so in 1 Peter 5:1 which reads: To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed.

Does that mean that he had a wife and children? The Bible would infer that he had both a wife and children because in 1 Timothy 3: 1-7, the Paul tells us the qualifications for an Elder (also called a bishop, overseer, or pastor).The passage is below:

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Vs. 2 tells us that a requirement is to be married. Vs 4 tells us that he must have children to to be an elder. Some will argue that the Bible does not say that one has to be married or have children to be an elder, but look at what vs 5 says. If anyone does not know how to manage HIS OWN family, HOW can he take care of God’s church? That is a key point.

From these Scriptures, we know that Peter was married and had children. If he did not, he would not have been an elder. We also know that Paul was a Preacher/Minister/Evangelist and not an elder. We know that because of what the Bible says Paul’s works were, plus Paul does not claim to be an elder, and finally because we know that Paul was not married, because he said so. The Bible is clear that an individual cannot be an elder if they do not meet the qualifications to be one.

If you question that requirement, look at the Acts 1:21-26, it lays out the requirements to be an apostle. That is when Matthias was selected to take Judas’ place. There were specific requirements to be an apostle. God’s word is always specific.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have heard discussion about this now on several occassions, although I do not recall anything in the New Testamant about Peter having a wife and children.

Am I safe to assume that the Bible does not reference Peter as having a wife and children?

Is it safe to assume that he was a Jewish Fisherman and probably did have a wife and children? If he did, why is there no mention of this in scripture?

Is there any good reading material on this subject? Any good documents in the Catholic library on www?

Thanks.

[1 Peter 5:13](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Peter+5:13&version=NIV)
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We know that Peter was an elder because he says so in 1 Peter 5:1 which reads: To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed.

Does that mean that he had a wife and children? The Bible would infer that he had both a wife and children because in 1 Timothy 3: 1-7, the Paul tells us the qualifications for an Elder (also called a bishop, overseer, or pastor).The passage is below:

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Vs. 2 tells us that a requirement is to be married.

No, verse 2 tells us that ***if ***an elder is married, he is to be faithful. Please show where the verse says, “an elder must be married”.

Vs 4 tells us that he must have children to to be an elder. Some will argue that the Bible does not say that one has to be married or have children to be an elder, but look at what vs 5 says. If anyone does not know how to manage HIS OWN family, HOW can he take care of God’s church? That is a key point.

Again, no. Paul is merely pointing out that if one is married with a family, he must manage them well. Paul is not laying down a precept that only married men with good families are qualified to be elders.

Maybe it would be helpful to review some basics:

Bishop, Priest and Deacon

catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Bible is clear that an individual cannot be an elder if they do not meet the qualifications to be one.

Let’s take a big picture view of what Jesus and Paul actually thought concerning marriage and celibacy, okay?

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For 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.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[Abu]

Exoflare
I don’t believe the church had instituted the disciplinary measure of priestly celibacy until much later on… does anybody know exactly when this was begun?
Mystophilus
The Church does not hide the fact that early Christian clerics were allowed to marry, nor should it wish to.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – priestly celibacy is an Apostolic norm.

Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

According to Christian Cochini, S.J., in *The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy *(p. 79), the “majority of contemporary exegetes” interpret it to mean a Christian woman as an assistant, not a wife.

The phrase of 1 Cor 9:4—adelphaen gynaika or mulierem sororem — means a believer woman, a sisterly assistant or a housekeeper, not a wife. Let’s not allow ideology to give us wrong translations. Even if present English versions uniformly read “wife,” they are uniformly wrong.

 

[mdgspencer]

As several mentioned, Peter had a mother-in-law. But whether he had children is not known. Whether his wife was alive when he first met Christ too is not known–she could have died, so nothing can be said about that.
Being celibate, not married, isn’t indispensable for priests in the Catholic Church. In the Catholic eastern rites, married men can become priests. (Though their priests cannot marry after they become priests). And also some Episcopal ministers who are already married, have become Catholic priests after they convert. For such reasons there are married Catholic priests in the United States.
However, the Pope has said celibacy among the priests is an ornament of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. Though celibacy is not always manditory among Catholic priests when it comes to the instances I just mentioned, it is a positive good as practiced in the Latin rite. Catholic Eastern rites too recognize this as good because those already priests in these rites cannot marry, nor can a married priest in an Eastern rite become a bishop.
Since whether a deacon or priest can marry is a matter of Church regulation, the modern Church can do as it seems best, just as the earliest Church could do what it chose at the time.
However, some people have mentioned deacons. Catholic deacons in the U.S. can be married, so this isn’t involved in the question of manditory celibacy

 

[Abu]

mdgspencer
the Pope has said celibacy among the priests is an ornament of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church… the earliest Church could do what it chose at the time.

How gross. There is nothing “ornamental” about priestly celibacy. It was an Apostolic norm – mandatory from the time of the Apostles. Further no one “could do what they chose” obviously, as it was mandatory.

The fact that in the East there developed later a rebellion does not alter the facts.

Although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

Fr Ray Ryland writes: “In more recent times, the predecessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction in 1858 that stated: ‘Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in Holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.’ " 9
Notes
9 Quoted by Roman Cholij, Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code. Eastern Churches Journal , Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), p. 112.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

 

[MarioSr]

Randy,

You are incorrect in your reading of the Scriptures that I quoted in 1 Timothy. Go back and review it again. How many times is the word MUST BE there? Its only their once, and then it list several other requirements such as be temperate, able to teach, etc. Are you telling us that God put those requirements in place IF an elder teaches, they must be able to teach. Or if the have a temper, they must be able to control it. No, Sir. Those were requirements for Christ’s Church. You also name an order, or structure, in Christ’s Church. Christ is the head of his Church, and then you have elders, deacons, priest (evangelists), etc, and members. All elders are on the same level. Remember when the apostles were arguing about who would be greatest in the Kingdom.

Another correction, if you read the Scriptures, 1 Timothy 3: 8-11 also says that deacons must be married and have children. Yes, these men are servants, but how can they be effective servants if they have not lived what they preach. How can someone who has never been married, counsel a married couple on the problems that they are facing? How can someone without kids tell someone how to deal with kids? It is not possible.

Peter was married. If Peter was married, why are men forbidden to be married to be priests? Abraham was married. Wasn’t he used by God? Barnabas was married. He too did many works for God’s Kingdom.

The Bible warns about false teachers who FORBID MEN TO MARRY and TO ABSTAIN FROM certain foods.

Finally, their was no hierarchy in Christ’s Church above the position of elder. Yes, the apostles had special gifts, but they were no different than the titles that Christ inspired his writers to write in the Bible.

Please show me Biblical Scriptures that create positions of Cardinal, Archbishop, and Pope. I would like to read them. Please do not direct me to a doctrine other than the Holy Bible.

If we are going to follow God’s Word, we must know God’s word. If you think that God is not serious about what he commands, please read the story about Uzzah, who reached up to steady the tabernacle when the oxen stumbled. It is found in 1 Chronicles. God struck him dead on the spot because he was NOT supposed to touch the tabernacle. Simply the priests. Uzzah had good intentions, but God is specific.

You quoted Scriptures about Paul earlier saying it is best for men not to be married, but he also said if a man desires to be married, he can be married. To become a priest in the Catholic church, you don’t have a choice. That is not Scripturally sound doctrine. The Catholic church believes that Peter was the first pope. Where did we get that notion from, when he specifically says that he is an elder. Why is the Pope not married. Why doesn’t he have kids?

In closing, in any Scriptural reference that you find about Christ’s Church, you will see that elders were established in local congregations. There was never an elder over multiple congregations. Yes, Peter was an elder, but he was not over mulitple churches. He did not oversee multiple Churches. When he heard they were doing wrong, he came in and preached to the elders what is right. He was an elder in his local congregation.

We fall under the New Testament Church which is established in the Book of Acts on the Day of Pentecost. Please give me Scriptures that I may reference to show me that there were other positions in the Church that besides members, preachers/evangelists, deacons, and elders.

 

[patrick457]

Peter was married. If Peter was married, why are men forbidden to be married to be priests? Abraham was married. Wasn’t he used by God? Barnabas was married. He too did many works for God’s Kingdom.

Are you aware of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches? They have married clergy. It is really only in the West that the discipline - not doctrine - of celibacy exists, and even then, it only came into effect about a millenia or so ago to curb the abuses rampant at the time.

I mean, Jesus and St. Paul himself said:

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

The Bible warns about false teachers who FORBID MEN TO MARRY and TO ABSTAIN FROM certain foods.

Same old, same old.

Catholic laymen are free to marry. Heck, Matrimony, just like Holy Orders, is a Sacrament in the Catholic Church!

 

[MarioSr]

If someone was to give an individual a pattern, and that individual used the same exact ingredients and followed the instructions fully, they would create an identical object to the pattern.

If we can understand that, then why are we not following the Scriptural doctrine for Christ’s Church which is the Bible? The ingredients are people. If I followed the instructions, as laid out in the Bible, the Church would be identical to the one found in the Bible. No matter if I was in Rome, Brazil, the US, Korea, etc.

God’s Word has not changed. If you read the Catholic Bible, the King James Bible, the NASB, the NIV, or the New Jerusalem Bible, they are all identical in God’s message. Where the disconnect comes, is individuals decide to add bylaws, creeds, and doctrines to decipher what God says. The Bible is pretty clear on every point. Finally, the Bible cannot contradict itself. If the word says that an elder is to be married and have children that’s what they are to have. Peter had both. Barnabus has both. How do we know, because the Bible tells us so. A requirement to be an elder was to be married. I will always stress vs. 5 in 1 Timothy, Chapter 3, that clearly states if a man cannot manage HIS OWN FAMILY, HOW can he manage God’s church.

Finally, God always references marriage to Christ’s relationship with his Church. Do you think marriage is not critical? He tells us to be the head of our wives, as Christ is the head of the Church. We are to present them without blemish, and love them as Christ does His Church.

God has a work for everyone in His Kingdom. Married, divorced, single, etc.; however, they cannot be a deacon or elder if they are not married, or are divorced, and did not have children.

Yes, they could be priests/ministers/evangelists if they choose, but in no way can they be FORBIDDEN to marry in order to assume these roles. That is man’s doctrine, not God’s. Telling me you have examples of exemptions does not change the fact that if one desired to be a priest, he cannot marry. If he cannot marry, he cannot be an overseer (also called bishop, elder, or pastor).

I want to take my opinion out of this and I would ask for you to take your opinion out of this matter and just APPLY God’s Word.

 

[Abu]

MarioSr
To become a priest in the Catholic church, you don’t have a choice. That is not Scripturally sound doctrine….If we are going to follow God’s Word, we must know God’s word

We should know God’s Word – that Christ never wrote anything, and that the Bible was certified infallibly by His Church, and Catholics wrote the New Testament. Only Christ’s Church can correctly interpret what is in the Sacred Scriptures. Having understood these truths we can proceed. Christ gave us His Church, not a Bible and He wrote nothing.

Not only is the celibate priesthood from Christ, it is most scriptural:
St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

How strange that Scripture can be so neglected.

patrick457
it [the celibate priesthood] only came into effect about a millenia or so ago to curb the abuses rampant at the time.

False.
From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

 

[patrick457]

False.
From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

Okay, I stand corrected.

If I understand it right, married men are allowed to the priesthood, but priests are not allowed to marry once they are ordained, correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter was married. If Peter was married, why are men forbidden to be married to be priests? Abraham was married. Wasn’t he used by God? Barnabas was married. He too did many works for God’s Kingdom.

This is a Church discipline, not a doctrine. At one time in its history, IBM insisted that all of its employees wear white shirts. Tennis players at Wimbledon must wear white. Every organization has its standards. Celibacy is standard in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

However, there are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Bible warns about false teachers who FORBID MEN TO MARRY and TO ABSTAIN FROM certain foods.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely.

Finally, their was no hierarchy in Christ’s Church above the position of elder. Yes, the apostles had special gifts, but they were no different than the titles that Christ inspired his writers to write in the Bible.

I see. So, although the Bible mentions Apostles, Bishops (episcopoi), Priests (presbuteroi), and Deacons (diakonoi), there is no hierarchy among these four groups?

Please show me Biblical Scriptures that create positions of Cardinal, Archbishop, and Pope. I would like to read them. Please do not direct me to a doctrine other than the Holy Bible.

These are terms that have developed over time to describe various positions within the Church. But if this really troubles you, perhaps you will show me where to find the word “trinity”, another technical term, within the Bible itself. Or is that a term that developed later, also?

If we are going to follow God’s Word, we must know God’s word. If you think that God is not serious about what he commands, please read the story about Uzzah, who reached up to steady the tabernacle when the oxen stumbled. It is found in 1 Chronicles. God struck him dead on the spot because he was NOT supposed to touch the tabernacle. Simply the priests. Uzzah had good intentions, but God is specific.

Thank you, Mario…I, too, have read a bit of scripture.

You quoted Scriptures about Paul earlier saying it is best for men not to be married, but he also said if a man desires to be married, he can be married. To become a priest in the Catholic church, you don’t have a choice. That is not Scripturally sound doctrine.

Sure you do. If you want to be married, then get married. If you want to be a priest, then be celibate. I gave up my right to marry any other woman when I married my wife; why is it such a big deal if a priest voluntarily gives up his right to marry any woman when he is ordained? Life is full of mutually exclusive choices. The Church does not make the choice or force anyone to do anything he does not want to do.

The Catholic church believes that Peter was the first pope. Where did we get that notion from, when he specifically says that he is an elder.

The word “pope” is simply a form of the word, “papa” or “father”. It was initially applied to all Bishops, and gradually became used to describe only the Bishop of Rome.

Yes, Peter was an elder (and an Apostle). So what?

Why is the Pope not married. Why doesn’t he have kids?

Because, like Paul, he wants to live in undivided devotion to the Lord. Ask your pastor how difficult it is to raise a large family and attend to the needs of a large congregation. Believe me, many Protestant pastors (and their wives!) respect the advantages of the celibate priesthood.

One other question: do you guys have problems with “preacher’s kids” turning out wrong, or divorce, or adultery among your clergy? :sad_yes: We don’t have those issues.

In closing, in any Scriptural reference that you find about Christ’s Church, you will see that elders were established in local congregations. There was never an elder over multiple congregations. Yes, Peter was an elder, but he was not over mulitple churches. He did not oversee multiple Churches. When he heard they were doing wrong, he came in and preached to the elders what is right. He was an elder in his local congregation.

You’re right. Peter was not over multiple churches. He was over the one universal Church; other bishops were responsible for the local congregations you refer to as “churches”.

We fall under the New Testament Church which is established in the Book of Acts on the Day of Pentecost. Please give me Scriptures that I may reference to show me that there were other positions in the Church that besides members, preachers/evangelists, deacons, and elders.

Gee, according to Corinthians, you left out prophets and teachers just for starters. However, that’s not really what you’re asking for, so although I have my doubts that you’ll actually read it, I refer you to the following:

**Successors of the Apostles **
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

 

[Abu]

patrick457
If I understand it right, married men are allowed to the priesthood, but priests are not allowed to marry once they are ordained, correct?

This is only in the Eastern Rite. In the whole Church celibacy was the Apostolic norm until the Eastern Rite unilaterally chose to change the discipline in the seventh century without authorisation. It still is the norm in the Latin Rite.

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly celibacy. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (Ad Catholici Sacerdotii , 43, 1935).

George Sim Johnston [crisismagazine.com/january2006/feature1.htm]](http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2006/feature1.htm]) writes:
“A Lutheran or Episcopalian minister who is already married and wishes to convert to Catholicism is allowed the option of becoming a Catholic priest, on condition that his wife gives full consent. You don’t usually see these married priests, because they’re generally not given parish assignments; they teach in seminaries or work in the chancery.”

The special arrangements in the U.K. for Anglicans allows for married former prelates to be ordained priests.

 

[MarioSr]

Someone said that the Catholics wrote the Bible. I beg to differ. The Bible also begs to differ. I’ve attached several Scriptures below for your review.
All SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING, AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT the MAN OF GOD may be THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK. - 2 Timothy 3:16 – 17
Much in every way! First of all, THEY HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. – Romans 3:2
Above all, you must understand that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE CAME ABOUT BY THE PROPHET’S OWN INTERPRETATION. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men SPOKE FROM GOD as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. – 2 Peter 1:20-21
that is, the mystery made known to me BY REVELATION, as I have already written briefly. – Ephesians 3:3
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when PERFECTION comes, the imperfect disappears. – 1 Corinthians 13:9-10
But the man who looks intently into the PERFECT LAW that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it–he will be blessed in what he does. – James 1:25
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days HE HAS SPOKEN TO US BY HIS SON, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. – Hebrews 1:1-2
EVERY WORD OF GOD IS FLAWLESS; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. – Proverbs 30:5-6
Take the helmet of salvation and the SWORD OF THE SPIRIT, which is the WORD OF GOD. – Ephesians 6:17
Sanctify them by the truth; YOUR WORD IS TRUTH. – John 17:17
Then you will KNOW THE TRUTH, and the TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE." – John 8:32
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the WORD OF TRUTH. 2 Timothy 2:15
For I GIVE YOU GOOD DOCTRINE, forsake ye not my law. – Proverbs 4:2
There is a judge for the one who REJECTS ME and DOES NOT ACCEPT MY WORDS; that VERY WORD WHICH I SPOKE will condemn him at the last day. – John 12:48
Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, IN CHRIST WE SPEAK BEFORE GOD WITH SINCERITY, like men SENT FROM GOD. – 2 Corinthians 2:17
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD. – John 1:1
His divine power has given us EVERYTHING WE NEED for life and GODLINESS through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 2 Peter 1:3
But even if we or an angel from heaven SHOULD PREACH A GOSPEL OTHER THAN THE ONE WE PREACHED to you, LET HIM BE ETERNALLY CONDEMNED! – Galatians 1:8
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD unto these things, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES that are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: - Revelations 22:18
Secondly, someone said that Peter was the head of the Church. Some may believe that Peter is the head of the Catholic church, but he definitely is not the head of Christ’s Church. The Bible shows us that Christ is the head of his Church.
Colossians 1: 18 says: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Ephesians 1:22-23 says: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Ephesians 5:23 says: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Colossians 1:24 says: Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
Let me ask you a question, why do Catholics call themselves Catholics or Universal? It makes no sense because followers of Christ are Christians. Disciples of Christ are Christians. You can tell me that it doesn’t matter what name you call yourselves, but you really don’t believe that. Names are very important. Your last name is very important because it shows who you are. Your wife’s last name is very important because it shows that your wife is married to you. If we are married to Christ, why would we not wear his name? Why would we not be out shouting from rooftops when folks ask us what is our religious belief and say “I’m a Christian.” Instead, they say “I’m Catholic”, “I’m Baptist”, I’m Protestant, etc, etc.
Christ’s Church is not a denomination. The churches that I named above are denominations.
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I FOLLOW Paul”; another, “I FOLLOW Appolos”; another, “I FOLLOW Cephas”(which is Peter); still another, “I FOLLOW Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul CRUCIFIED for you? Were you BAPTIZED INTO THE NAME OF PAUL? - 1 Corinthians 1:12-13
DENOMINATION = DIVISION
There is a way that SEEMS RIGHT to a man, But ITS END is the WAY OF DEATH. – Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that APPEARS TO BE RIGHT, BUT in the end IT LEADS TO DEATH. – Proverbs 16:25
.