We only know that Peter was married, and, this was because a “mother-in-law” is mentioned. But, apart from St. John, we don’t know the marital status of the others (not even Matthais). We do know that Paul was single.
Clearly Peter had a wife and brought her along during the time that Paul was working (so well after Pentacost). While not perfectly clear, it seems to me that this passage would mean that James and at least some of the other apostles also had wives at this time.
This passage gives Paul’s thoughts on who would make a good bishop. Being married was clearly not a bar.
1 Corinthians 9:5 “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas” Cephas is one of the names for Peter. The Biblical quote clearly infers that Peter was married as well as many of the other Apostles and that they brought their wives with them.
I’d suggest you slow down and carefully choose your words rather than trying to fill the post with quantity . . . and confusion . . . I feel as if we’re reading the sequel to the Screwtape Letters . . .
Again, we know that Peter was married due to the mention of his mother-in-law, but was his wife alive or was Peter widowed and chaste?
What other specific scriptural or traditional references do we have that tell us the original 12 apostles were married, either before or after Jesus called them to ministry?
They are quite irrelevant and need not be broached at all.
Thanks for the info…that solves evrything and it is all so clear. Wish I had thought of that.Wonder how the protestant Chruches do it. I wonder how they supported a married clergy for all those years before celibacy was mandated. Many married priests do it everyday. they visit the sick, give last rites at 5 oclock in the morning and still get up to go to work when their alarm rings.
“Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas” Indicates clearly that the apostles had wives. If we look at the text of the Gospels ((Matthew 8:14–17; Mark 1:29–31; Luke 4:38) We find out that peter was married before he became a disciple of Christ.
I mentioned that it was from canon law several times. If you go back to the first few posts of mine you will see that this laiciaztion can not theologically exist and you are welcome to try and refute anything i have said on the matter.
First of all, where did you get your opening statement from? You make a lot of points, but, you don’t offer citations. Are these ideas coming from you or from CORPUS? Again, I ask, where aer your sources?
i would have thought that after citing it several times previous you would be satisfied. i even See that someone else cited it as well. Herr you go: “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas.” 1 Corinthians 9:5
Laicization shows the lengths the church has gone to to try and create some sort of legal fiction to allow men who were called to the priest hood to answer their call to marriage as well. The Church has created a loop hole that can not possible exist so they can retain the hold on a celibate clergy.
The position I have taken is the original position of the Church instituted by Christ Himself. many of the Church Hierarchy are the ones that decided to change this and do the “180” as you refer to it as.
What I am demonstrating is that the Church was the one who forced celibacy upon the clergy and a purely celibate clergy was obviously not what Jesus wanted when he chose the twelve.
You missed the point of that again. The dissent of all those people shows that the church can indeed be wrong. That was the point.
As noted above, that is just irrelevant.
i think you should pass this on to them as it seems directed towards others than me.
This is an interesting point because you dismiss the argument as a whole without visiting it at all. What you so convieneitly dismiss is what is know as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and it has become most evident that you are more willing to
I never suggested that the Church doe snot have the authority to determine the validity of a sacaremnt. You said this just now. What I did say is that the Church doe snot have the authority to declare a valid sacrament invalid.
What you are arguing here is that if there is no disconnect between Christ and the Church to a certain extent then it was the will of Christ that heretics were burned, pedophile priests were moved around and protected, to say nothing of the grave issues of the inquisition and the crusades. This is the Catholic Church not Islam. You claim the Church has the4 authority of Christ and that there is no breathing room between the authority of Christ and the Authority of the Church but this understanding works both ways and I doubt very much if you want to make the argument that it was from Christ’ authority that hertics were burned, the crusades were fought and pedophile priests were protected. You do not realize the magnitude of what you are saying for if you did you would understand that everything the Church has ever done wrong could be traced back to the authority of Christ.
I wouldn’t doubt that at all.
I don’t think that this point has been brought up until just now or disputed in anyway.
I am sure they would love you giving their website and organization free advertsing but I fail to see the point.
I like how you are substituting an argument from a website that has not been brought as proof or even suggested in this mater. If you wish to criticize these organizations then I would suggest you send them and email with your objections so we can get back to the issues at hand.
Let me get this right. A non catholic church which obviously isn’t catholic has priest shortages and you wan to make the connection that a priest shortage in the catholic church would not be solved if the clergy were married. basically what you are saying is that the problem in the Catholic church would not be solved because the protestant churches have the same shortage and they allow for marriage. You are catholic and making this argument? I could see this coming from a protestant view but not a catholic. I want to see if you can see your mistake in this comparrison before I explain it in order to give you the time to either clean it up or modify what you just said.
Authority is a neutral term. It only takes on meaning when it is given an adjective. like Church or divine. If you are advocating that they take a “said position” as a rejection of authority that would not make any sense whatsoever because of the neutrality of authority.
Let’s get the facts right.
There are a number of links around as to celibacy and the priesthood. It is an issue I ahve been involved with ever since I was in the seminary - which goes back to the 1960’s.… and I only ask this because I’m trying to really learn about this subject. Granted, I could research this on my own, but I like being directed to VIABLE links etc so that I can supplement my own information gathering.
Opinions of why priests should or should not be celibate is great–but is there sound Catholic information out there that credits celibacy as being necessary for the priesthood…and that it eminated from Christ? I believe the Church and Christ to be a union of one. I have noticed that some posters will talk about the RCC as though it were making decisions independently of the Holy Spirit. That I believe is a false teaching/ or presumption, at the very least. So, if those of you who have viable links, info, etc…could you post them instead of mere opinion sprinkled with a few factoids? Thank you kindly–I hope my request makes sense.
Without answering for statements made by Joyousguard, we are speaking about an issue that is a disciplinary issue. To answer your question about the propiety of questioning Rome’s decisions as to the discipline of celibacy as a requirement for priesthood in the Roman rite, I would point you to the questioning of reception of Communion in the hand which goes on extensively within these fora (something done in the early Church, then later changed by disciplinary rule to receipt on the tongue, and now allowed by indult), or the issue of whether or not women should be required to wear a head covering (noted in St Paul’s letter, seemingly mandatory, and part of Canon law previous to the changes in the recent Canon), and whether Communion should be received standing or kneeling.
That is an excellent point right there. Furthermore, the Holy Father writes:
Did Paul VI say it was going to be easy? No. Is marriage a cakewalk through life? No. But, each vocation (and, marriage is a vocation) brings with it joy and sorrow, but always with the grace of God.
I appreciate you taking the time to post this–really it was very helpful. (Links are not a must, but helpful too ha)
Considering that the Eatern rites ahve been dealing with this for 2000 years, I would suspect they may have information as to how it gets done. some thoughts: there seems to be a presumption that if one is a priest, one has to be stationed in a parish and be there 24-7. That is simply a presumption; not all priests today are in parishes, alsthough the great majority are. The same question could be asked about doctors, attorneys, cpa’s, business owners, mid level managers, teachers… the list ogoes on and on. Part of the presumption is that everyone else out there has a 40 hour work week; not true. Part of it is alos that the priest has to be at every meeting, all day every day. A pastor may need to be more available; and perhaps married priests would not all become pastors; but there is a presumption that everything has to be done by the priest. Some of it can be done by lay people; some can be done by deacons; and if there are more priests, some of it can be done by a fair division of the work load.
the issue of sacraments at odd hours is not that much different than doctors with emergency surguries and “on call”. The issue always gets handled. Further, the number of times a priest is called out at odd hours is greatly exagerated.
How does the Church support these families of priests should priests be allowed to marry? These families would be the Church’s responsibility in a real sense. Celibate priests live in rectory as a general rule and that makes them available…or at least more so than if they would live in a normal private home with a private phone number. I like that and I hope the priest does too.
pismopal;3201499:
Again, the issues you raise are already there. We have a married clergy. It also ignores the other side of the coin - what are we missing by not having priests who can also be good role models for others who are married. For every negative that someone can bring up, there are positives.Actually some of that depends on the diocese; in many areas, the rectories are empty or used for other purpsoes, and the priest lives in a private residence. As to support, perhaps those in the pews need to revist the issue of justice and obligation to support the Church; Catholics are notorious for being near or at the bottom of the rung in terms of giving.
pismopal;3201499:
What I am saying here is that this brings on huge practical and financial problems for the Church that actually doesn’t solve a problem if I understand correctly that most priests are happy as celibates. /QUOTE] that issue of them being happy is perhaps a smoke screen to the issue; we are not talking so much about the ones ordained as the ones who would be ordained if the Church would allow them to be. So happy is not part of the equation. Further, huge practical and financial problems ignores the fact that we have married clergy in both the Eastern and Roman rites. We can deal with it now; I suspect we could deal with it in the future.
pismopal;3201499:
If most priests want to be married and have children ok fine but standby as allowing priests to have families will force the Church to pay them enough money to allow a priest to raise that family and they ALL will have to be paid the same, married or single…its the law. When a priest’s wife becomes unhappy with Church life and wants her priest husband to leave…what do you think might happen? I have a good idea. That is why I think this change would be very harmful to the Church. Nothing is simple is it?
