Were all the apostles married?

[PRmerger]

On another thread a poster provided this verse to support the view that the apostles were married.

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?–http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/9.htm

If the apostles had a “believing wife”, does this not presuppose that celibacy was not a thing for the early church presbyters?

 

[Sy_Noe]

On another thread a poster provided this verse to support the view that the apostles were married.

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?–http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/9.htm

If the apostles had a “believing wife”, does this not presuppose that celibacy was not a thing for the early church presbyters?

Well it would appear that celibacy was not a thing of the early church. Which then begs the question why is it a discipline today in the Roman church if the Roman church claims to be today’s representative of the early church?

 

[PRmerger]

Well it would appear that celibacy was not a thing of the early church.

Well, what we can surmise is that the disciples of Christ, Jews, were married.

But where do you get that the priests in, say, 800 AD were not celibate?

Which then begs the question why is it a discipline today in the Roman church if the Roman church claims to be today’s representative of the early church?

The Catholic Church is not Roman, Sy.

The CC consists of more than 20 rites, or which the Roman, or the Latin rite, is only one of them.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, what we can surmise is that the disciples of Christ, Jews, were married.

But where do you get that the priests in, say, 800 AD were not celibate?

The Catholic Church is not Roman, Sy.

The CC consists of more than 20 rites, or which the Roman, or the Latin rite, is only one of them.

Btw I have no idea if every apostle was married per your thread title. But apparently some for sure. But regarding 800 AD, that’s the thing as I see it. If they had to be celibate in 800, then the Catholic Church veered from the early church. And yes I am well aware of the rites. But it’s the Roman branch/rite that forces celibacy. Yet others with a different discipline are in communion with the Roman Pontiff. That’s all I mean when I speak of the Roman church. All the Catholic rites are supposed to be in communion with Rome where the believed successor to the apostle Peter resides and from where he leads the Catholic Church, believed by the faithful to be Christ’s one and only true church from the beginnings of the early one. I mean no offense to all the various rites.

 

[Mintaka]

It is well known that some apostles, such as Peter and Philip, were married or had been married. (Peter couldn’t have a mother in law who got healed, unless he’d been married at some point, obviously!)

It is equally well known that the Apostle John never married and was a virgin all his very long life. (Although actually there’s a tradition that John was the groom at Cana, and just never consummated the marriage. But also some people say Simon the Zealot was the groom from Cana, and that version assumes normal married life ensued. Which I guess would have been lucky for the bride, because it’s better to have your husband learning from a rabbi instead of pursuing the art of assassinating Romans.)

The other apostles fall somewhere in between; you get various traditional accounts of whether various apostles were married, had kids, or didn’t.

That said, I think you will find that Paul uses the term “apostle” in various senses other than just the Twelve. An “apostle” in this sense is a missionary or “ambassador” sent out by the Church (and hence Jesus). Nobody can say for sure what the exact sense of this was when Paul used the word, but it seems to have been used for various sorts of people.

 

[friardchips]

I am not at all convinced they were all married as some might have been too young and some would have had dangerous missions to come which would have left any wives as widows so in my opinion it is unlikely they would have been married. Also, St. Paul spoke of how one cannot serve the Lord as directly as when one is married. I think this hints at celibacy. There were loads of saints by 800 who were celibate and I’d assume that included martyr priests and many others. I wonder whether some of this concern that apostles were married has come from organisations such as Opus Dei (?)

In terms of the Catholic Church: there is only one Catholic Church and this is the Roman Catholic Church, in that, we acknowledge the Pope as our Holy Father. This succession comes all the way from St. Peter. In terms of Latin Rites, if any Churches have segregated themselves from the RC Church officially, then they would be known as a schism. Within the Roman Catholic Church is the New Rite and the Old Rite (known also by other terms) but these are all within the RCC. In terms of Catholic Orthodox, they are still a break from Rome. To be honest, the easiest way to think about it is: the Church of our Lord that accepts our Lords’ full gift of Himself, is the Roman Catholic Church. All the rest of the Churches are not Catholic but rather Christian - Christian, because they believe in our Lord; however, many other Churches will not recognise the Chair of St. Peter and various doctrines and Dogmas. Catholic means ‘all-embracing’ and so if one is ‘all-embracing’ then one accepts everything that has been given to us and this would be the gift of the RCC in all her wonderful array.

 

[PRmerger]

It is well known that some apostles, such as Peter and Philip, were married or had been married. (Peter couldn’t have a mother in law who got healed, unless he’d been married at some point, obviously!)

It is equally well known that the Apostle John never married and was a virgin all his very long life.

When in dialogue with Protestants, it will be necessary to offer Scriptural proof of this.

I don’t recall any verse which asserts that John never married? Is there something you’re thinking of?

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder whether some of this concern that apostles were married has come from organisations such as Opus Dei (?)

Why do you think Opus Dei is behind this?

As for my question, it comes from a Protestant poster on another thread (link provided in Post #1) who represents, probably, a lot of Protestant thinking on this.

In terms of the Catholic Church: there is only one Catholic Church and this is the Roman Catholic Church, in that, we acknowledge the Pope as our Holy Father.

If you note our Catechism, it does not title the Church as the Roman Catholic Church.

Rather, it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51tZ1iQ2lZL.SX258_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

You can search the Catechism and there will be no mention of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the term “Catholic Church” produces 5 pages on a search in the CCC.

 

[Duane1966]

On another thread a poster provided this verse to support the view that the apostles were married.

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?–http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/9.htm

If the apostles had a “believing wife”, does this not presuppose that celibacy was not a thing for the early church presbyters?

That is a bad translation, which I will show later (I am working now). The word translated as wife Is better translated as sister.

Do you believe Jesus was married?

 

[PRmerger]

That is a bad translation, which I will show later (I am working now). The word translated as wife Is better translated as sister.

Ah.

Do you believe Jesus was married?

No! Good grief!

 

[PRmerger]

Btw I have no idea if every apostle was married per your thread title.

I see.

But there are some Protestants who read the Bible and believe that all of them were.

I wonder if God set up a way to clear up disputes like this?

But regarding 800 AD, that’s the thing as I see it. If they had to be celibate in 800, then the Catholic Church veered from the early church.

Well, only in the way that an oak tree has “veered from” the acorn.

The CC has grown and developed doctrinally, corporately, organically.

But this is not to be confused as saying, “The CC has changed its teachings.”

The Catholic Faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

But it’s the Roman branch/rite that forces celibacy.

This is such a misinformed statement. In so many ways.

Firstly, you ought to know that there are Roman Catholic priests who are married.

And as far as forcing celibacy…nope.

It is forced on no man.

No man who views celibacy as being an enforcement ought to be considering the priesthood.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is well known that some apostles, such as Peter and Philip, were married or had been married. (Peter couldn’t have a mother in law who got healed, unless he’d been married at some point, obviously!).

Since Jesus chose Peter who was married as the first Pope, and other married apostles, why should not the Catholic Church follow the example of Our Divine Lord and choose a man who is married, or who had been married, as Pope?

 

[PRmerger]

Since Jesus chose Peter who was married as the first Pope, and other married apostles, why should not the Catholic Church follow the example of Our Divine Lord and choose a man who is married, or who had been married, as Pope?

That is no more a criterion for choosing a pope than it would be to say that “since Jesus chose a fisherman, shouldn’t all the popes be fishermen?”

And note, I am not talking about a metaphorical fisher of men.

Peter was a fisherman. You know, the guy who goes out into the water and drops bait and tries to catch a live animal for human consumption.

 

[adrift]

I am not at all convinced they were all married as some might have been too young and some would have had dangerous missions to come which would have left any wives as widows so in my opinion it is unlikely they would have been married. Also, St. Paul spoke of how one cannot serve the Lord as directly as when one is married. I think this hints at celibacy. There were loads of saints by 800 who were celibate and I’d assume that included martyr priests and many others. I wonder whether some of this concern that apostles were married has come from organisations such as Opus Dei (?)

We can only know that Peter was married but even then there is the thought that he was a widower. Jesus spoke of being a Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven. It is a probability that there were married apostles but what isn’t certain is who.
As for the quote from Corinthians, Paul states that he has the right to have a wife with him yet we know he was unmarried.

In terms of the Catholic Church: there is only one Catholic Church and this is the Roman Catholic Church, in that, we acknowledge the Pope as our Holy Father. This succession comes all the way from St. Peter. In terms of Latin Rites, if any Churches have segregated themselves from the RC Church officially, then they would be known as a schism. Within the Roman Catholic Church is the New Rite and the Old Rite (known also by other terms) but these are all within the RCC. In terms of Catholic Orthodox, they are still a break from Rome. To be honest, the easiest way to think about it is: the Church of our Lord that accepts our Lords’ full gift of Himself, is the Roman Catholic Church. All the rest of the Churches are not Catholic but rather Christian - Christian, because they believe in our Lord; however, many other Churches will not recognise the Chair of St. Peter and various doctrines and Dogmas. Catholic means ‘all-embracing’ and so if one is ‘all-embracing’ then one accepts everything that has been given to us and this would be the gift of the RCC in all her wonderful array.

The Catechism states that it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church not Roman. Roman refers only to the rite not to the Church itself. By adding the adjective Roman it becomes an oxymoron on catholic. I could be wrong and I am sure you will point it out but I don’t believe the other rites refer to themselves as being Roman Catholic. I am Catholic period. I belong to the Roman rite. By Declaring myself Catholic it includes all those joined together under the Pope not just “Roman”. I assume you know where the adjective “Roman” applied to the Catholic Church derives from, right?

 

[Tomdstone]

That is no more a criterion for choosing a pope than it would be to say that “since Jesus chose a fisherman, shouldn’t all the popes be fishermen?”

And note, I am not talking about a metaphorical fisher of men.

Peter was a fisherman. You know, the guy who goes out into the water and drops bait and tries to catch a live animal for human consumption.

I don’t see why Roman Catholics do not want to follow the example of Our Divine Lord. This is very difficult to understand, since Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and came down to earth to save mankind.
Further, as far as I know, there is no rule which forbids a fisherman from being Pope or a Roman Catholic priest or bishop in the Roman rite.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see why Roman Catholics do not want to follow the example of Our Divine Lord. This is very difficult to understand, since Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and came down to earth to save mankind.
Further, as far as I know, there is no rule which forbids a fisherman from being Pope or a Roman Catholic priest or bishop in the Roman rite.

So, you are advocating that being a Pope could be a part time job held by a fisherman who continues to ply his trade as a fisherman? Recall that Peter left behind his boat. Or are you advocating that married men leave their families – and their married vocations – behind in order to take on the task of being a Pope?

I am slightly

 

[Tomdstone]

I am slightly

It might be confusing until you read what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 9:5: Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Why does not the Roman Catholic Church follow the perfect example set by Our Divine Lord, who was both God and man, and allow a married man to become a bishop or a Pope?

 

[boomerang]

The word for “wife” can also be translated as “woman.” Gunaika = wife or woman. I’ll bet none of the apostles were married at the time of their calling. Why would Jesus select these men, only to have them abandon their wives and children to go evangelizing all over the world, then die martyrs, leaving their families without any means of support? Do you think Jesus would want His apostles to abandon their wives and leave their families to fend for themselves?

We know Peter had a mother in law. There is no mention of his wife being there. He was probably a widower. :twocents:

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t see why Roman Catholics do not want to follow the example of Our Divine Lord. This is very difficult to understand, since Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and came down to earth to save mankind.
Further, as far as I know, there is no rule which forbids a fisherman from being Pope or a Roman Catholic priest or bishop in the Roman rite.

Jesus asks those who can live celibately to do so. Paul echoes these instructions, not to impugn marriage, but because those who give up marriage can focus more on the lord. Jesus Christ, who the priests act in person of during the mass and the sacraments, also never married, so you can quite literally say they are following Christ’s example.

As for Peter, there’s nothing to say that his life was livong at the time of his calling.

The discipline about not allowing the ministerial priesthood to marry isn’t held to be some divinely revealed law. It’s just a best practice within the Roman church. Celibate life in general, though, is a divinely lauded vocation, per Jesus’ own instructions and Paul’s further instruction on the matter, and has always been seen as such even within the early church.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see why Roman Catholics do not want to follow the example of Our Divine Lord.

We do. That’s why priests are celibate. Because they’re following the example of Our Divine Lord who was…celibate.