Son and wife of Saint Peter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Psychic said:
newadvent.org/bible/1pe005.htm
But wasn’tSt. Peter the first Pope? How could he be married with children?
Click to expand...
First, St. Peter was married before he became the leader the Christ’s Church. Second, celibacy was not imposed to bishops (etc) at the time. It took some time before the Church officially announced that Bishops (etc) must practice celibacy, even though many in the Early Church practice celibacy.
 
I wonder if any descendants of the apostles are still alive? They probably don’t even know who they are descendants of.
 
MH84 said:
I wonder if any descendants of the apostles are still alive? They probably don’t even know who they are descendants of.
Click to expand...
There may be very many of them

Population genetics being what they are, all it takes is time

“They” say that 0.5% of the men in the world (that’s about 30,000,000 mostly in Asia) is descended from Genghis Kahn and that up to 1 in 12 Irishmen are descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages base on Y chromosome groupings.

That is not even counting descent on the female side
 
Is not the article writing about Mark the Gospel writer who documented Peter’s preaching? They were very close, like Paul and Timothy was. It would not be uncommon to refer to him as his son.
 
Mankney said:
Is not the article writing about Mark the Gospel writer who documented Peter’s preaching? They were very close, like Paul and Timothy was. It would not be uncommon to refer to him as his son.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought… I think (conservative) consensus is he was speaking figuratively about Mark who wrote the first gospel.
 
where does it say that peter’s wife was alive,only his mother in law is mentioned.
 
MH84 said:
I wonder if any descendants of the apostles are still alive? They probably don’t even know who they are descendants of.
Click to expand...
A person whose ancestors all came from a country roughly the size of England (That’s the example I read about) would probably be descended from every person alive in that country 1000 years ago who has living descendants. I don’t know how many people in the Middle Ages have current living descendants. Of course, really every country has had people coming and going so that it’s far more complex. But geneticists apparently identified a Medieval man who is an ancestor to close to everyone alive today. He had sons and daughters by many women, and most of his children were prolific as well and well-traveled. So, when you look at both sides of the family, you are really almost everyone’s cousin. It’s more important to know about your ideas’ roots than your physical roots.
 
Early on married men could become clerics (deacons, priests, and bishops), but they were expected to refrain from relations with their wives after they were ordained.
 
dacoobob said:
Early on married men could become clerics (deacons, priests, and bishops.
Click to expand...
And it is still the case today. I went to DL at the Melkite parish that has a married priest and deacon. There are even a number of Latin Rite married clergy, although they are mostly converts or multi-ritual priests.
 
Psychic said:
newadvent.org/bible/1pe005.htm
But wasn’tSt. Peter the first Pope? How could he be married with children?
Click to expand...

Put it this way:​

  1. In the year 2000 the USA army existed
  2. In that year it had Cruise missiles
Bearing that in mind - what (if anything) is wrong with this ?
  1. In 1900 the USA army existed
  2. It is the army of the nation that had Cruise missiles
  3. Therefore, the US army had Cruise missiles in 1900.
The logical form may be invalid. The point should be clear enough: that one cannot conclude from the existence of a quality X in a subject Y in the present, that subject Y must have had quality X in the past.

It does not follow that because certain persons are the successors of St. Peter, all the qualities predicable of them, must be true of him. Otherwise, we would have to reason that St. Peter, one of whose successors is a Bavarian German, must himself have been a Bavarian German. Nor can we reason that because the present Pope was a professor of theology some time before becoming successor of Peter, so must Peter have been.

Some things are essential to Popes for them to be Popes - other things are not. And it does not follow that because they must observe an ecclesiastical law of clerical continence, even before becoming Pope, he too had to: because clerical continence is not essential to the clergy, whether the cleric become Pope or not - if it were, no man who had been married could ever have been ordained.

Peter was an Apostle - he was not a Pope. His function in the Church is continued, but not his vocation to the Apostolate. That was for the foundation of the Church only, not for her continued life. There can no more be a continued Apostolate, than there can be a continued institution of the Sacraments, or a continued Crucifixion. Many things in the Church are unique & unrepeatable - the vocation of the Apostles & their Apostolic labours, are among them. As is the function of Peter in the Church. The Apostolate is a bigger thing than the Papacy - Popes are bishops, & bishops are so far from being Apostles that they inherit part only of their vocation.

What continues, is the application & manifestation & unfolding & fruition of the unique & unrepeatable things: so the Petrine function continues, in a different form. As such, it has taken a variety of forms throughout the history of the Church - without any implication that because later men who exercised it were (for example) bishops of Rome before ever the Papacy developed, Peter too must have exercised the same function in the same way. That would be like supposing that because Pius IX wore the triple tiara & offered Mass in Latin, Peter must have. Which nobody believes.
 
This thread brings to mind of a prophecy made by Paul refering to the “latter times”;

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

Many contend that the Catholic Church has "depart[ed] from the faith’. Forbidding to marry is but one item in this passage that is reminicent of what the Catholic Church became.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
Peter was an Apostle - he was not a Pope. His function in the Church is continued, but not his vocation to the Apostolate. That was for the foundation of the Church only, not for her continued life. There can no more be a continued Apostolate, than there can be a continued institution of the Sacraments, or a continued Crucifixion. Many things in the Church are unique & unrepeatable - the vocation of the Apostles & their Apostolic labours, are among them. As is the function of Peter in the Church. The Apostolate is a bigger thing than the Papacy - Popes are bishops, & bishops are so far from being Apostles that they inherit part only of their vocation.
Click to expand...
Interesting post. I agree that “Popes…are so far from being Apostles” I do not agree that the office of Apostle was meant to be ended after the church was established as you imply, Did not the Apostles seek the Lords guidance and call Matthais to fill the vacancy created by the “transgression” of Judas? (see Acts 1:25)
 
Re: depart from the faith verse

Some would say that Paul was complaining about Gnostics who told other people to do, even though they hadn’t been given the power to bind and loose by a certain Savior of our acquaintance.

I don’t think this is an argument that does much good for your position. First, you will have to put forth the entire theology and practice of your own group, and that will be tedious for all. Then people will point out to you all sorts of Bible verses, and you will point out others. History will be referenced. Church Fathers will be referenced. We will find out just what bits of early Christian practice you don’t like, and which martyrs you would regard as having “departed from the faith”. You will find out which obscure early heresies and schisms are similar to your church. It will be boring.

Speaking of churches, what is your church? Is it in your profile?

looks

I see. You are a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and yet you are protesting against theological development. You are protesting the forbidding of meats, as a member of a faith which forbids all manner of things that most would consider “wholesome”. And as a member of a group widely considered to have Gnostic tendencies, you quote anti-Gnostic scripture.

blinks

I think you need to study up on your argument techniques. You are like a person who not only decides to walk through a blizzard without a coat, but to strip from head to toe before heading out the front door.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top