Was St Peter divorced?

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

redrosetea

Guest
I can’t seem to find it in scripture, but I have been told he was
 
Funny, I’ve never heard that. It would seem pretty strange for his (ex?) mother-in-law to still be having him over if that were the case.:rolleyes:
 
I have never heard anything like this in my life, nor seen any evidence of it in Scripture. Very odd.
 
Is this ‘rumor’ at the same level of credibility as those who say Paul was homosexual?

According to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visions, Peter had a wife during the time of Christ’s ministry.
 
redrosetea said:
I can’t seem to find it in scripture, but I have been told he was
Click to expand...
Well its up to you to provide the source and evidence for such a claim. Who told you? Let them give you the documented source.
Its not up to us to refute unfounded claims.
 
Aside from the fact that this is undocumented and there are no sources here to refute, doesn’t this belong in the Apologetics forum? 🤷
 
According to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visions, Peter had a wife during the time of Christ’s ministry.

To give an even more authoritative source, Peter himself referred to leaving his wife and family for Christ’s sake in the Gospels. And in one of his Epistles, Paul referred to Peter’s travelling with his wife on mission journeys. (Here he uses the name Cephas, and I really doubt there were two apostles called Cephas.)
 
Now I’ve heard everything!

Is there a special group who spend all day trying to come up with the most anti-Catholic nonsense they can think of and spread it as a rumour?

This rubbish is not in Scripture and not part of the Tradition of the Church so let’s consign it to the trash can where it belongs.
 
I’ve always been under the impression that St. Peter was a widower.
 
thistle said:
Well its up to you to provide the source and evidence for such a claim. Who told you? Let them give you the documented source.
Its not up to us to refute unfounded claims.
Click to expand...
I was told this years ago by 2 catholics that said they had been taught this in parochial school…This was all pre Vatican II

I have never been able to find a source for it and wondered if anyone else had heard it?
 
I think that some folks believed that Peter became celibate and set his wife aside- which did not mean they were divorced but more like friends than husband and wife.in old times usually they set the wife up comfortably and entered religious orders- very Middle Age (medieval) thinking.🙂
 
It still surprises me why we feel the need to somehow diminish St. Peter’s married state. Whether or not he was married and having normal relations with his wife, or celibate, or widowed has absolutely no bearing on anything. Fact of the matter is, St. Peter was married. That should not bother Catholics in any way.
 
porthos11 said:
It still surprises me why we feel the need to somehow diminish St. Peter’s married state. Whether or not he was married and having normal relations with his wife, or celibate, or widowed has absolutely no bearing on anything. Fact of the matter is, St. Peter was married. That should not bother Catholics in any way.
Click to expand...
Agreed-but some Catholics see the marriage vocation not as “good” or “sacred” as Holy Orders. Silly I know but that’s very Traditionalist thinking.
 
We know Peter was married because scripture mentions his mother-in-law. What we don’t know is if he was still married or widowed at the time he followed Jesus and frankly I agree it doesn’t make any difference.
What is clear to me though is that he was not divorced as it wouldn’t make much sense mentioning his mother-in-law.
 
I am not bothered …I was curious…I thought this forum was to ask for information…my mistake:shrug:
 
thistle said:
We know Peter was married because scripture mentions his mother-in-law. What we don’t know is if he was still married or widowed at the time he followed Jesus and frankly I agree it doesn’t make any difference.
What is clear to me though is that he was not divorced as it wouldn’t make much sense mentioning his mother-in-law.
Click to expand...
Peter was married at the time he followed Jesus and even much later as the leader of His church.
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5.
Click to expand...
 
Zenas said:
Peter was married at the time he followed Jesus and even much later as the leader of His church.
Click to expand...
First, that is not saying Peter has a wife at the time that was written. It is simply saying that anyone should have the right to bring along a wife if they chose to.
However, the translation which uses the word “wife” is a wrong translation.

D-R Bible.

1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Haydock Commentary:

“A woman, a sister”… Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (chap. 7 ver. 7, 8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries.
 
I am familiar with Haydock and I know how the D-R translates this verse. However, the three English language Catholic bibles in widest use today refer to “wife” rather than “sister”, to wit:

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Click to expand...
REVISED STANDARD VERSION CATHOLIC EDITION
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Click to expand...
NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE
And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?
Click to expand...
As has already been stated on this thread, there is nothing heretical or offensive about believing St. Peter was married. I see no need to twist this verse to an unnatural meaning just to demonstrate that he was not married. After all, celibacy of the priesthood is not Church dogma is it?
 
Zenas said:
I am familiar with Haydock and I know how the D-R translates this verse. However, the three English language Catholic bibles in widest use today refer to “wife” rather than “sister”, to wit:

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

REVISED STANDARD VERSION CATHOLIC EDITION

NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

As has already been stated on this thread, there is nothing heretical or offensive about believing St. Peter was married. I see no need to twist this verse to an unnatural meaning just to demonstrate that he was not married. After all, celibacy of the priesthood is not Church dogma is it?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t hold up the NAB as a good translation as you’ll have most of the forum members jumping up and down.

By the way, nobody said Peter was not married. What I said there is nothing in scripture to suggest he was still married when he followed Jesus and the verse from Paul you quoted certainly does not show that. I am intrigued though when you maintain he was married “much later as the leader of the Church”. Where does that come from?
 
I seem to recall early Christian traditions saying that Peter did indeed have a wife who took a part in his ministry. She was said to have been martyred in Rome prior to Peter’s death. I believe I heard this while listening to Mike Aqualina, but I can’t be sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top