Was St. Peter married when he met Jesus?

[observer333]

Q: How can this article conclude that: “Most scripture scholars say that it was likely Peter was a widower when he met Jesus, leaving him without any obligations that would prevent him from being the first pope of the Catholic Church” ?

What about 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ASV)?: “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

A: He was married when he was pope.

Was St. Peter married when he met Jesus? --Aleteia

Peter's mother-in-law is recorded as being healed by Jesus himself.

aleteia.org

Philip Kosloski | Feb 22, 2019

Peter’s mother-in-law is recorded as being healed by Jesus himself.​

Little is known about the life of the apostles before they met Jesus, but one thing is certain: Peter had a mother-in-law.

Matthew recounts an interesting episode in his Gospel where Jesus visits Peter’s house and finds Peter’s mother-in-law lying sick in bed.

And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever; he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and served him. (Matthew 8:14-15)

This implies, of course, that Peter was married. However, one of the glaring omissions from this passage is the presence of Peter’s wife. Instead of Peter’s wife serving them, it was his mother-in-law, making it appear that she was the only woman in the household.

Where was Peter’s wife, then? Was Peter’s wife alive when he encountered Jesus?

Early traditions answering this question diverge in various ways. Some early Church fathers say yes, she was alive and even accompanied him on his journeys to Rome. There is even a tradition that says she was martyred with Peter.

However, little archeological evidence points to a possible existence of Peter’s wife in Rome.

Other traditions affirm that Peter’s wife died before Peter met Jesus, which is consistent with her absence in the Gospel narratives.

Most scripture scholars say that it was likely Peter was a widower when he met Jesus, leaving him without any obligations that would prevent him from being the first pope of the Catholic Church.

 

[BartholomewB]

“Most scripture scholars say that it was likely Peter was a widower when he met Jesus.” I would be curious to see the names of those “most Scripture scholars” who make that very doubtful assertion.

The online Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent website leaves the question unanswered.

Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).

http://newadvent.com/cathen/11744a.htm#I

 

[Mintaka]

Well, there was clearly something going on with Peter’s wife, because they were staying at his mom-in-law’s house and not his own house; and when his mom-in-law got well, his mom-in-law was the one serving people. Also, the mom-in-law was dying before that, but we don’t hear about Peter’s wife being there or having a reaction.

Normally you would expect a married man who was a partner in a successful fishing company to have his own house, with his wife in charge, and his mother-in-law as a guest or in her own place. And if he were at the outs with his wife, he’d probably also have been at odds with his mother-in-law.

Now, it’s possible that Peter’s wife never appeared because she was away, or because modesty forbade mentioning her. (Greco-Roman and later Jewish custom was usually that you didn’t mention the name of a respectable woman unless you were praising something outstanding that she did, and you didn’t even drag the name of a bad woman out in public unless she were really really bad.)

So a lot of people think that Peter’s wife was already dead when he met Jesus, and that any kids he might have had were already old enough to be on their own.

OTOH, the tradition that Peter’s wife was martyred is reasonably old, and the tradition that Peter also had a daughter who was martyred is semi-old. The concept in this tradition is that Peter’s wife (and the daughter too) was one of the female disciples; and that this was an example of what Paul was referring to, when he talked about apostles bringing their wives along.

Of course, this tradition is also pretty insistent that once they became disciples, Peter and his wife practiced continence (abstinence from sex) at all times. Since continence during Temple service was a rule for Jewish priests, continence before saying Mass was a rule for married Christian priests and bishops, and Peter would have been saying Mass a lot, this is a reasonable tradition to believe.

 

[BartholomewB]

because they were staying at his mom-in-law’s house and not his own house;

Or, alternatively, the Catholic Encyclopedia may be correct when it states,

Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38)

 

[Mintaka]

Oh, and although the biggest legends for St. Petronilla are that she was St. Peter’s daughter, the archeological evidence tends to indicate that she was a Roman of high birth named Aurelia Petronilla, and was probably named after Titus Flavius Petro.

There’s an Elizabeth Peters novel set in Rome that has a lot of backstory stuff about St. Petronilla and archaeology, but which never mentioned this archaeological evidence. I expected better of her, frankly.

 

[thistle]

Well, there was clearly something going on with Peter’s wife, because they were staying at his mom-in-law’s house and not his own house; and when his mom-in-law got well, his mom-in-law was the one serving people.

This is not correct. It was Peter’s house.

Matt 8:14 -15

14 Jesus entered the house of Peter, and saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

15 He touched her hand, the fever left her, and she rose and waited on him.

 

[jack63]

I think this is a good and relevant question. However, I’m also concerned that we’re trying to find guidance on an issue (i.e. married priests and clergy) when marriage was understood very differently 2000 years ago vs. today. In other words, the writers of the Bible may not have felt the need to clarify some of this points such as whether St. Peter was married when he met Jesus.

Here is why…marriage as a sacrament is only about 800 years old. Was marriage a idea/tradition/“state of being” …yes obviously. A quick Wikipedia search discusses this and gives references…

Marriage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Modern Christianity bases its views on marriage upon the teachings of Jesus and the Paul the Apostle.[215] As of 2015 many[quantify] Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacrament, sacred institution, or covenant,[216] but this was not the case before the 1184 Council of Verona officially recognized it as such.[217][218] Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest’s presence required.

At a very similar time, the Catholic Church decided priests should be celibate

When Did the Catholic Church Decide Priests Should Be Celibate?

A celibate priesthood predates Christianity.

historynewsnetwork.org

The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.

The point is the Bible is not going to clarify the fine points of a sacrament that was not going to exist for nearly 1200 years. It doesn’t seem to make sense that the writers of the Bible would do this. We’re taking it a step further and trying to use scripture about St. Peter to make a spiritual judgment on whether priests should be married. In my mind, this is not going to happen in any meaningful way.

Honestly, my opinion and my hope is that the leaders of the Church and Pope Francis pray about the idea of married priests and use their most sincere and best judgment. I like what Pope Francis says…to paraphrase…celibacy is a gift to the church, but exceptions should be considered based on pastoral need.

 

[LML]

Most scripture scholars say that it was likely Peter was a widower when he met Jesus, leaving him without any obligations that would prevent him from being the first pope of the Catholic Church”

Whether he was, and when he was, I’m not sure if its a hill worth dying on…in the grander scheme it has no bearing on preventing him from being the first pope, or pope today.

 

[BartholomewB]

I like what Pope Francis says…to paraphrase…celibacy is a gift to the church, but exceptions should be considered based on pastoral need.

I think we can even guess at the where and when. The Amazon. October.

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Mintaka]

Thanks for the correction, Thistle!

There is nothing wrong with having married priests. But even in the East, it is forbidden for a man who is already a deacon (?) or priest to get married after becoming a cleric. (There is one exception – priests with very young kids can remarry if their wives die. Once.) Bishops in the East can usually never have been married, so they usually pick monks.

And the obvious elephant in the room is the ancient tradition of the Church that goes back to Judaism and the Temple-- if you are a married priest, you cannot have sex after midnight if you are going to have Mass the next day, and you and your wife both have to fast from sex a lot. (Same with Eastern laypeople, though.)

The popes have allowed our recent pastoral provision married priests and our permanent deacons a lot of freedom on this point. But if it is going to be a thing to have married priests all the time, the fasting regs will have to come back. And if they do, it would not be fair on the wives if ordinary laypeople do not also fast from sex during Lent, Advent, etc.

So yeah, let’s loosen celibacy and tighten continence! All of us unmarried chaste people await the results with interest.

 

[Mintaka]

Forgot to mention that, early in the Church and as we read about in Paul, there was a time when the ideal bishop was an experienced man with one wife or less. As the Christian population grew, they started to make bishops by the acclamation of the Christian crowd – sometimes preceded by capturing some educated Christian in town, including guys who were just passing through.

So we have guys like St. Ambrose (government worker) or St. Martin (famous monk) getting grabbed by towns. One of these was Synesius, a married Catholic student of the mathematician Hypatia, who was grabbed by the town of Ptolemais. We have his letters complaining about this, particularly since the town insisted that he never leave their town again (which he was just traveling through), that he immediately stop having sex with his wife, and that he move his wife and kids into another house, away from the bishop’s residence.

 

[Wesrock]

What about 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ASV)?: “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

There are traditions about Peter calling out encouragement to his wife at her martyrdom

However, as to the 1 Corinthians verse, I must disagree with it, as it seems a rather misleading translation.

First in koine Greek, the word for wife and woman is the same. Second, in this particular verse, the greek doesn’t just have the word “woman/wife,” It also has the word sister, such that it should read sister-woman (ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα, or perhaps sister-wife). And I don’t think I need to say more about the difference in relations between a man and his sister and a man and his wife. The point being that it seems these sister women the apostles traveled with would be non-romantic woman. We also know that Paul was specifically continent, but was being challenged about travelling with “sister-woman” which is why he wrote this verse. That only reinforces my point. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria in the second century makes the point that Peter and the other apostles gave up sexual relations with their wives and lived continently after truly starting their ministry. And I’ve seen not just Catholic but Orthodox sources (who allow married priests, though not Bishops) confirm this tradition. Clement also stresses that the apostles didn’t travel with women they had relations with, but that these women (mentioned in 1 Cor 9:5) were intended specifically to minister to woman in the woman’s quarters and to places men weren’t allowed to approptiately go for propriety. They were fellow disciples and apostles, not specifically wives in a romantic sense.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III

Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?” But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused.

So all that said, I don’t think 1 Corinthians 9:5 itself says anything about whether Peter was married at the time, whether he was or not.

 

[Wesrock]

Here is why…marriage as a sacrament is only about 800 years old. Was marriage a idea/tradition/“state of being” …yes obviously. A quick Wikipedia search discusses this and gives references…

This was addressed quite thoroughly in the other topic on marriage where you brought this up. The statement “marriage as a sacrament has only existed for 800 years” is not true.

 

[jack63]

This was addressed quite thoroughly in the other topic on marriage where you brought this up. The statement “marriage as a sacrament has only existed for 800 years” is not true.

Yes…that was an interesting thread where I learned something. I’m not trying to totally mess with people here by the way. Most of the time, I’m just trying to learn. What I took from that thread was that marriage is a sacrament and sacramental in nature, but it was a sacrament that the church was either not involved with or not heavily involved with for most of its history. Also, there is an interesting history of how the church got involved with marriage between 1200 and 1500. When I have some time I’ll have to learn more here.

With that being said, I still think there is a significant and fair question here. So the church got involved with the sacrament of marriage between 1200 and 1500. Before that they were not overly involved in the sacrament of marriage. If this is the case, the question here is why look to scripture to understand the fine points of marriage and married priests? Jesus certainly taught about marriage. I get that. However, isn’t there significant limits in what understanding we’ll find in scripture in terms of the fine points of marriage and married priests?

 

[phil19034]

As of 2015[update] many[quantify] Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacrament, sacred institution, or covenant, but this was not the case before the 1184 Council of Verona officially recognized it as such. Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest’s presence r Decrees on marriage.

Historians who lack Catholic theological training often take things like this out of context.

Matrimony was ALWAYS a sacarment. Councils simply confirm what already exists. Councils also place definitions (aka Dogmas) around questioned doctrine to help the Faithful more clearly understand what is & is not our Faith.

Finally, sometimes Councils introduces new disciplines to address issues. As validity of marriages started to be questioned more (esp noble ones), it became necessary for weddings to take place in front of clergy for record purposes.

However, to this day, the Roman Rite teaches that the husband & wife administer the Sacarment of Matrimony to one another. The Clergy only witnesses the marriage on the Churches behalf and assists the couple by facilitating the rites.

 

[phil19034]

The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.

This is not really true either. The Roman Rite always favored celibacy. It was a source of tension between East and West for centuries before the Great Schism of the 1050s

The Latin Church had been actively promoting among diocesan priests for a long time, which often made Eastern diocesan priests nervous. I think it’s safe to even say that some Latin Bishops were requiring celibacy long before the Latin Church made it mandatory.

So again, these articles are a failure of historians to understand Catholic Theology & the development of Dogma, Doctrine & Discipline.

BTW - both articles you have posted deal with a development of discipline, which came about for very real logistical concerns and could be theologically defended.

 

[rose321]

So again, these articles are a failure of historians to understand Catholic Theology & the development of Dogma, Doctrine & Discipline.

Respectfully opinion only in seeking out truth, questioning and examining…
Ask what does our Heavenly Father have to say about his within His Spoken Word?

Commanded right in the beginning…go forth be fruitful multiply and cultivate the earth…

Book of Leviticus is call such, we are told because 1/3 of the Book of Levi/ticus God gives his …Holy Code …Priestly Laws…his Priest are to be upheld to a… Holier standard to be … obeyed , to keep his priest undefiled…to remain serving on His Holy Altar is this true?
Tribe of Levi was His Nation of Priest right, he choose in serving him?

In Jesus time could one be even a Priest or serve upon his Holy altar if they… were not married once and multiplied…obeying God’s command… …go forth be fruitful and multiply and cultivate the earth?

Those priest being married also, could …divorce only their spouse…for just cause…if fornication …which is sexual immorality was committed?

St Phillip did he not also have 3 daughters who served him also within his church?
Being a Hebrew Israelite in Jesus time not to marry would be a huge no no would it not?

Is this why St Paul is being questioned on marriage, being single was he not?

St Paul …having to asking defend himself …Do I not have the right to not marry as you have the right to marry? But those who were asking St Paul…being… Hebrew Israelites …did they not know…God commanding them to marry…be fruitful and multiply and that to be a priest one has to obey this command, Priestly Law?

Confused on this…Why written within God Spoken Word… Far better for priest to marry, then be tempted into sin…fornication…sexual immorality?
Then priestly their offspring’s become our future priest?

Why I am asking …What does God say and commands in His Spoken Word for His Priests within the Book of Leviticus Priestly Laws to be obeyed, is this true?

Never was a shortage of Priest in Jesus time or before Jesus time was there Priest had families and each Priest…were assigned 1-2 weeks out of the year… to serve within the temple, then returned home to labor and care for their families, children and being head of their families within the community…would go into to their synagogues or do so in their own homes…they gathered …on their .weekly sabbath…would that be true also? etc right? Continued to do so, after Jesus death as written in the Gospels is this true or incorrect?

So were all Apostles then married if being Hebrew Israelites?

Peace

 

[dochawk]

As the Christian population grew, they started to make bishops by the acclamation of the Christian crowd – sometimes preceded by capturing some educated Christian in town, including guys who were just passing through.

Now I want to write a novel with this premise in the modern word . . .:crazy_face:

John is lured to a small town, under the premises of a meeting or conference. While there, he is captured by a rogue band of Vatican operatives, drawn from any number of conspiracy tales.

John is dragged kicking and screaming (but polite and reverent once entering the church) to the altar, where he is ordained and consecrated by the archbishop and two more suffragan bishops of the arch-diosese.

Meanwhile, another organization, patterned after the group from the Indiana Jones Holy Grail movie, abducts his wife and children, bringing them to his new official residence.

The Vatican goes ballistic, but the Archbishop cites the ancient rights of the local synod.

 

[Mintaka]

It would be funny stuff! Dooooooo eet.