R
Richard_I
Guest
I find it interesting that the first popes were married, including the apostle Peter. Why did this change? And why are popes not married now?
- Status
F
FCEGM
Guest
Welcome to CAF.
The discipline of celibacy for Catholic priests (thus for Popes) stems from the nature of the priesthood itself, namely that a priest offers sacrifice (THE Sacrifice of the Mass). As we see already practiced in Old Testament times, priests rotated terms of service in the Temple and were required to practice sexual fasting during the time of their service. (We see this at the beginning of St. Luke’s gospel when he presents us with the account of Zachary and Elizabeth and the conception of John the Baptist).) So it is quite consistent with Scripture.
Following this example, but most especially the example of Christ the High Priest of the New Covenant, when married men were chosen to be deacons, priests, bishops in the early Church they were required to be continent or be disbarred from the clergy following the Apostolic example who themselves were following the example of Christ in giving all to the furtherance of His Kingdom.
There were simple reasons for this: the Twelve were living celibate when they left their families to follow Our Lord and so were living with and like Him. Moreover, the Apostolic Offices of the Twelve was the highest office of the Church, which the Episcopal offices comes closest to but not equal to. The continence required of bishops followed the Twelve’s vocation to live totally for the Kingdom, as Our Lord says in Matthew 19 that some are eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom.
S
sw85
Guest
Well, no, they were not celibate (or at least not all of them). Some of them, like Peter, were married. But they were continent, i.e., they refrained from sexual activity.
To answer the OP’s question, continence has always and everywhere been expected of all Roman rite presbyters since the post-conciliar reforms and all Roman rite clerics since basically always before that. Celibacy was a later addition intended to promote and protect the law of continence. You can imagine it would be hard for a man to practice continence when he has under his care a woman he has enjoyed the carnal embrace with many times before; better to ordain ones not married at all in that case.
A
anixx
Guest
Peter was married, but if you recall the episode where Jesus healed his mother-in-law, her daughter, his wife, wasn’t present, not even mentioned. This would be odd, for the daughter not to be by the side of the bed of her mother, don’t you think? Most likely she was dead already, when this happened. And Peter wasn’t made a leader of the apostles until some time later, so he wasn’t married as a Pope. As for the other apostles, there is no mention of a spouse in the gospels, of any of them. The first bishops and probably the first popes were married, some of them. I don’t know any particular case, but considering the culture and the fact that Christianity was only at the beginning, it would be hard to find single adult men. But their duties as ordained ministers would supersede their duties of husbands.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Celibacy is not just an issue for the popes, the Bishop of Rome, but for all priests and bishops. On this website, you can find much background on the history of priestly celibacy. For example,
catholic.com/search/content/celibacy
W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
Just out of sheer unbridled curiosity does anyone know their names?
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Just because she wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean she wasn’t there.
Everything that you said about Peter’s wife could be true but the truth is that you made it all up.
As far as “so he wasn’t married as a Pope” could also be true and it could also be false so to state it as a “fact” is to say the least, misleading, wouldn’t you say?
As far as “it would be hard to find single adult men” and “As for the other apostles, there is no mention of a spouse in the gospels, of any of them”, don’t these two statements seem to be contradictory to what you are implying in both?
C
CarmelJerome
Guest
Code:
Discipline in the early Church was problematic, as St. Paul's letters show, because of the surrounding societies and the distance between the churches, their smallness, etc. Just as degrees of blood relation could hardly have been maintained in the infancy of humanity if humanity was to increase and multiply, the greater discipline would have made it difficult for the Church to grow; but as the Church did grow, greater problems ensued with clergy that were married. Certainly, anyone who has been through the Anglican experience must understand well that marriage doesn't increase the holiness or the pastoral or theological capacities of the priest.
Whatever the reasons for the institution and maintenance of the greater discipline, the malicious deceit of the Married Jesus fantasy conveyed through the Da Vinci Code must above all be refuted by the witness of St. Peter's successors. The popes, after all, are only successors of St. Peter; they are not imitators of St. Peter, except to the extent that St. Peter imitated his Master.
A
anixx
Guest
A
Aramis
Guest
Only in the West was continence the rule for priests and deacons - in the East, it was not, and still isn’t, for married men in the diaconate and priesthood. In the East, most bishops were monastics. In the second millennium, almost all unmarried priests in the East, be they Catholic or Orthodox, are monastics.
Also note: married deacons are not required by current canons to be continent, even in the West.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
This is merely Karl Keating’s opinion.
Could be that Peter’s wife was at the fish market trying to make some money since Peter basically abandoned whoever was involved when he went to follow Jesus.
Just because there are no children mentioned does not mean that there were no children involved either and even tho Peter’s wife’s mother was sick, Peter’s wife might have still went to the fish market so that she could put food on the table, among other things, and Peter’s wife’s mother may have told her to not worry about her being sick but to just try to get some food for the “little ones” to eat.
I am not saying that this is “fact” but what I am saying is that this is another scenario that could be behind the few words that are written in the bible concerning Peter and his marriage.
Why I said the “fish market” is that since Peter was a fisherman before he stopped to follow Jesus, his wife may have had some experience in the fish market and even tho Peter stopped fishing that didn’t mean that the people he may or may not have been financially helping stopped needing to eat and have a place to lay their head, among other things.
The “fact” is that we know very little concerning Peter and his marriage, very little, and I would say that anything that anyone comes up with is merely their opinion.
Who knows maybe one of the reasons that Jesus stopped by and cured Peter’s mother-in-law was to show whoever may have been involved with this situation that they really was something to this “Jesus” person.
Z
zab
Guest
Jesus said that there were some who have renounced marriage "… for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Matthew 19: 12. The Church has come to understand the importance of having a celibate priesthood and she has the authority to set such disciples.
F
Filioque
Guest
Well total Continence is not required in the East, but a priest must refrain from the marital bed for at least the night before serving the Divine Liturgy. He is required to focus on things spiritual. So if he celebrates several times a week, he is required to not engage in Sexual activity for the 24 hr period before the Divine Liturgy. While the same is not required for married former Anglican and other Protestant ministers who convert and are later ordained in the Latin Rite.
It is an ancient and honorable custom to be chaste and continent before celebrating the Sacred Mysteries, even among married men who are ordained to the priesthood.
W
Wandile
Guest
Actually the eastern rule of continence mirrored that of the west until the east laxed their rules. This happened round about the time of the council of Trullo.
While the Latin Church attempted to uphold its laws on clerical continence, the churches in the Greek-speaking East adopted a laxer code for their clergy. The Council of Trullo (691-92), which was held in Constantinople, decreed that married subdeacons, deacons and priests were not permitted to separate from their wives and were required only to observe periodic abstinence rather than perpetual continence in conjunction with the exercise of their liturgical ministry. However, these canons did not apply to bishops, who were required to separate from their wives, and Trullo continued to uphold the ban on marriage and remarriage for all major clerics after ordination.
The Holy See, which was not represented at Trullo, angrily refused to recognize its authority, especially its brazen claim that it was an ecumenical council whose canons were binding upon the whole Church. Naturally, Rome rejected Trullo’s canons on clerical marriage, which deviated so clearly from a tradition of clerical chastity that had long been observed in both the East and West.
A
anixx
Guest
This is speculation without a reasonable proof. The other sound’s more plausible. But who knows? I don’t think it is actually of great importance, anyways. Peter gave his life for faith and for Christ, not his wife. You don’t see any of the apostles settling down to their homes after the Ascension. They all went to the ends of the Worlds. From Spain to India, to Eastern Europe and, of course, our beloved apostles, Peter and Paul, which we celebrate today, who died in Rome. If one had a wife, it would have been more likely to carry water for them, or whatever. The message of the Death and Resurrection of our Lord was far more important then tending to the needs of a family. It really doesn’t matter. What does matter when thinking of the Apostles is their profession of faith in the Crucified Lord, with the sigil of blood. This is the faith of the Catholic Church, this is our faith, and my faith, also.
A
Abu
Guest
As Wandile in post #14 has pointed out correctly, the continence of married priests was the same for East and West – this error seems to recur endlessly. While the fact of priestly celibacy is a discipline, it is also more than a discipline because it is an Apostolic norm from the choices made by Jesus, and Sacred Scripture attests to its roots. The celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory.
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.
O
otjm
Guest
We have been down this route before; you selectively quote and won’t respond to other evidence.
The Roman rite for centuries had both a celibate and a married clergy, and while there were rules imposed as to continence, it often was observed in the “negative”, which prompted the matter to be brought up again and again, as enforcement was (lax? Ineffective?) or simply ignored.
The Roman rite has a discipline of only ordaining celibate men; and as it is a discipline, it can and is being waived (for converting married Protestant clergy).
Several years ago there was much ado by several Canon lawyers concerning the issue of continence of married deacons. It appears to have had all the relevancy of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin…
Factually, it is not “more than a discipline”. It is not a doctrine, never has been, and never will be. It is a rule. That is not to say that it is a whim; it certainly has support both in history and in the celibacy of Christ. But Christ never made it a doctrine, nor did He insist on it as a rule.
A
Abu
Guest
While the fact of priestly celibacy is a discipline, it is also more than a discipline because it is an Apostolic norm from the choices made by Jesus, and Sacred Scripture attests to its roots. The celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory.
While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means rules, including commands and prohibitions; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for; tradition means an inherited pattern of thought and action; custom means habitual practice of longstanding; practice means a customary way of acting; requirement means indispensable – the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory.
Here is more testimony to the truth:
Fr. George William Rutler, in an article entitled *A Consistent theology of clerical celibacy *(Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Feb. 1989), notes that “Virginity and celibacy were not synonymous in the original ecclesiastical institution of celibacy. Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination. The new archeology shows that this was the case for all the Eastern Churches in the earliest centuries and in a mitigated form later. In the Latin Church this was the clear rule throughout the first millenium, culminating in the laws of the Gregorian reform, especially as found in the First Lateran Council of 1123, and the Second Lateran Council of 1139…The discipline of the Second Lateran Council explicitly forbidding marriage after ordination was not an innovation in the observance of continence. Its prohibition of clerical marriage was only a regulation ensuring that the apostolic norm of abstinence would be better observed.”
All attempts to falsify the facts are reprehensible.
O
otjm
Guest
As I said, you are selective. There was no universal rule form the beginning; and the rule was not universal in its reach when it was first articulated. It took time and the fact is, there was a married clergy and a celibate clergy side by side for centuries. And in spite of the fact that continence was required, the emforcement was nowhere near as drastic as you imply.
Thank you for articulating what a discipline is. You have proved my point exactly; except that you are unwilling to admit it.
Then quit being reprehensible. The facts form history are that married priest had conjugal relations. Not - I did not say all, but neither was in a bare minimum of them. If you would actually read your quote, you would note that the Church over the centuries kept coming back and back to these issues. Why? Because there was a constant need to do so - that need being that the rules were ignored significantly enough that the Church had to address it, And then again, and then again…
Again, thank you for proving my point.
ralfyman
New member
This might help:
“List of sexually active popes”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
“List of sexually active popes”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
- Status