Saint Peter's Wife

[nevadagardener]

From Catholic Online’s version:

1 Corinthians - Chapter 9
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
2 Even if to others I am not an apostle, to you at any rate I am, for you are the seal of my apostolate in the Lord.
3 To those who want to interrogate me, this is my answer.
4 Have we not every right to eat and drink?
5 And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?

The point is: Did Peter abandon his wife? This would indicate that his “Christian wife” was “accompanying” him. I’d like to see someone else come up with more that supports it, as mine did, supporting they were together until the end of both; then it stands. Else, you have to provide something that defies it.

Yes, no doubt, there are so MANY Biblical references about the women in the ministry who accompanied them. Not to be confused with the above, a very specific question as to Peter and his Christian wife, who accompanied him.

Your reference to “tradition” is getting warmer, but no source to quote we can go to. Dig it out, as I did. Then come back to the table. You can use references to “tradition” if you can document them to something we can track back. Otherwise, your position is fiction.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Tertullian’s writing “On Monogamy” on this issue:

"Peter alone do I find–through (the mention of) his “mother-in-law”,–to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists. The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks,** in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name–however, there is a name proper to wives–shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? **For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, “For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?” But when he subjoins those (expressions)which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, “For have we not the power of eating and drinking?” he does not demonstrate that “wives” were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply “women,” who used to minister to them in the stone way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord." - “On Monogamy” Chapter 8

The St Jerome has his own commentary on the marital status of the Apostles, he says the same as Tertullian stated, but says it was possible the Apostles did in fact have wives, but had to separate from them once they were made Apostles of Christ. Then he further states that even if it were to be translated wives it must be understood that the wives were “related in spirit, not by wedlock.” Nonetheless, St Jerome believes this verse not to infer the Apostles were married.

In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord:[1] “Lo we have left all and followed thee,” the Lord answered him,[2] “Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life.” But if, in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words[3] “Have we no right to lead about women or wives” (for gunh in Greek has both meanings) “even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord ?” let him add what is found in the Greek copies,** “Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives ?” This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. **Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterwards made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to put for him a table, and bread, and a candlestick, and the rest. At all events if we take gunaikas to mean wives, not women, the addition of the word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shews that they were related in spirit, not by wedlock. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had no wives. - Book I Against Jovianius

St Augustine likewise interprets 1 Corinthians 9:5 use of the word gunaika as women:

“…for to this end did also faithful women which had earthly substance go with them, and minister unto them of their substance, that they might lack none of those things which pertain to the necessities of this life. Which thing blessed Paul demonstrates to be lawful indeed unto himself, as also the other Apostles did it, but that he had not chosen to use this power he afterwards mentions. This thing some not understanding, have interpreted not “a woman which is a sister,” when he said, “Have we not power to lead about a sister a woman;” but, “a sister a wife.” They were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word, because both “wife” and “woman” is expressed in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the Apostle has so put this that they ought not to have made this mistake; for that he neither says “a woman” merely, but “a sister woman;” nor “to take” (as in marriage), but “to take about” (as on a journey). Howbeit other interpreters have not been misled by this ambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman” not “wife.”…”–Treatise 137:5

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

1 Corinthians 9:5 is just one example where the NAB breaks with Catholic tradition

 

[Randy_Carson]

1 Corinthians 9:5 is just one example where the NAB breaks with Catholic tradition

How so?

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

See my previous posts. Before the NAB catholic bible translated it “women” even Tyndales translation said that. Church Fathers writing on it generally say its wrong to translate the Greek as “wife”

 

[nlm]

I think its clear from the answers that Peter was indeed married but his wife was dead. In the same way, the call to remain single is not obligatory, a man can marry and wait for his wife to die and then answer his calling to be a priest.

Peter was the first pope so he set the pattern and several popes have been married men that qualified to the position after their wives died.

I am sitting here trying to imagine what kind of marriage one would have ,living with that in mind. " Waiting for his wife to die". The priest who married my wife and I had been married for a great number of years. It was only when his wife was on her death bed that he shared with her what he would be doing after her death. He was a priest for about 15 years before he died.
God Bless.NLM

 

[rinnie]

I am sitting here trying to imagine what kind of marriage one would have ,living with that in mind. " Waiting for his wife to die". The priest who married my wife and I had been married for a great number of years. It was only when his wife was on her death bed that he shared with her what he would be doing after her death. He was a priest for about 15 years before he died.
God Bless.NLM

I don’t understand what you have a problem with here, or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Myself if I was dying and my husband told me that while he loved our life together, he was going to live the rest of his life on this earth serving God. I would think that is awesome.

I would think wow, what a wonderful husband he has been, and what a wonderful Priest he could be for the Church. And I would give him my Blessing. ANd I would die thanking God for letting me share this wonderful life with him. And I couldn’t think of a better person I could possibly pick to replace me

 

[JanetF]

As per the library on this website Celibacy in the priesthood is not unchangeable dogma, but a disciplinary rule. Priests in the Eastern rite are allowed to be married. Married Anglican priests often convert…their marriages are not dissolved. See 1Cor 7:8-9

 

[nlm]

I don’t understand what you have a problem with here, or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Myself if I was dying and my husband told me that while he loved our life together, he was going to live the rest of his life on this earth serving God. I would think that is awesome.

I would think wow, what a wonderful husband he has been, and what a wonderful Priest he could be for the Church. And I would give him my Blessing. ANd I would die thanking God for letting me share this wonderful life with him. And I couldn’t think of a better person I could possibly pick to replace me

You are correct in saying what you say,“if you were dying and your husband told you he was going to become a priest etc.etc.”
How would you have felt if shortly after you married him he told you he felt called to the priesthood and he would be waiting for you to die so he could become a priest.
Looking at it this way I think changes things…for me at least.For some women it would mean their husband was not happy being married and they were putting in time until they died so they could do what they felt called to do.After all, the priesthood is a calling not a choice one makes. Perhaps I had not explained myself correctly. God Bless. NLM

 

[crowcounty]

good for peter

 

[rinnie]

You are correct in saying what you say,“if you were dying and your husband told you he was going to become a priest etc.etc.”
How would you have felt if shortly after you married him he told you he felt called to the priesthood and he would be waiting for you to die so he could become a priest.
Looking at it this way I think changes things…for me at least.For some women it would mean their husband was not happy being married and they were putting in time until they died so they could do what they felt called to do.After all, the priesthood is a calling not a choice one makes. Perhaps I had not explained myself correctly. God Bless. NLM

I guess it would depends on the way one truly feels. But I personally feel that marriage is a calling also. And if I did get married and shortly after my husband felt that way I would probally feel that an annulment would be in order. But speaking for myself if I did stay married and felt God wanted me to do something else AFTER being married I would fill thats what God wanted then. God does not make mistakes.