Were all the apostles married?

[PRmerger]

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:

Yes. I think this is the most cogent and coherent explanation of the verse which mentions “wives” of the apostles.

 

[Wesrock]

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?

I’d find it rather disturbing if the apostles had sister-wives, as the Greek seems to imply. It’s also odd that Paul would be defending himself as having a “sister-wife” when he clearly states elsewhere he is unmarried. Sister woman would be more accurate. Like Phoebe, mentioned in Romans 16. It’s addressed here:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-peter-have-a-wife

 

[Peregrinans]

Well, as far as I know, scripture only references Peter specifically in regards to marriage, but I think it is possible for a number of the apostles to have been married. First, in 1st century Judaism people married very young. Also, we are told that groups of women, including Mary Magdalene, followed Jesus and cared for His needs. This is mentioned in, for example in Mathew 27:55.

It would be a little scandalous back then for a group comprised entirely of single men to be followed around, and attended to, by a group comprised of unrelated youngish women,who were not chaperoned by a least some married women . So, either all the women, who followed Jesus, were beyond child bearing years or there was a mix of women. Some old, some related to Jesus, or apostles, by blood and perhaps some related to the apostles by marriage, wives, mother-in-laws, etc.

So, I don´t think any of the apostles, who might have been married, would have had to leave their wives or children, at least for good. They could have travelled with them to certain locales, a base camp so to speak, and then perhaps were only left behind while the apostle went out and about to spread the gospel. Now mind you, those lengths of time were probably long and it most certainly was a hardship, as Luke 18: 28-30 alludes to: “Peter said to Him, ‘We have left all we had to follow you!´ 29 ´Truly I tell you,’ Jesus said to them, 'no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean they left their families for good, nor does it mean that the apostles were single. Like I said some of the women accompany them could have been their wives.

However, having said all of that, it would be a very hard and dangerous life to have been an apostle’s wife, so over time the tradition of celibacy probably evolved from the need to avoid putting undo pressure, especially financially, on the families of those chosen to spread the word. Also, being unburdened with familial responsibilities would free up time, minimize expenses and allow greater ease of travel.

 

[Tomyris]

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?

The clear sense of the text is that the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas were currently taking wives along with them.

The word gune translated ‘wife’ here in the NIV (and in the New American Bible, a Catholic translation, has the linguistic reach to include ‘wife’ or ‘woman’ but not ‘sister’, if you look at a lexicon. I would be surprised if you find a translation that uses ‘sister’ as Greek has a word for that. Also, ‘older woman’ as in the capacity of serving the apostle has a separate word that Paul could have used (presbytis). And it would have been scandalous for a woman the apostle was not married to to accompany him.

The idea that it was ‘sister’ was pushed when the church starting emphasizing celibacy over marriage, but it is clearly NOT the meaning of the word here - unless you have an agenda.

 

[Duane1966]

Ah.

No! Good grief!

The reason I asked is because the same word that the NIV translates as wife in the epistle of Paul in the gospels of Luke and Matthew they translate as women. Why do they not translate it at as wives?

From fisheaters.com

Divergent Translations
Saint Paul celibate Apostle priest bishop model chastity
There can be no doubt that
Saint Paul was celibate.

This translation, taken from the Protestant New International Version of the Bible, appears to leave no doubt that “the other apostles,” including “Cephas” (i.e., Saint Peter), were married. The King James version provides a somewhat different translation: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

The classical Catholic translation of the Bible into English, commonly referred to as the Douay-Rheims version, gives us a text that excludes the interpretation that all the Apostles, Saint Paul inclusive, were married: “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?”

An objection could be raised that the Douay-Rheims version does not translate the text directly from the Greek but from a Latin version known as the Vulgate. This Latin text reads mulierem sororem or “a woman sister.” A return to the original Greek should dispel any discrepancies in this regard.

The Real Meaning of Adelphên Gunaika
What are the Greek words which have been translated as “believing wife,” “a sister, a wife,” or “a woman, a sister”? The key words (transliterated into Latin characters) are: adelphên gunaika.

Gunaika (the accusative or objective form of gunê) can mean both “a woman” and “a wife.” This happens, incidentally, in Romance languages like French, Spanish, and Portuguese, in which femme, mujer, and mulher, respectively, can have both meanings.

To avoid any ambiguity as to the meaning, Saint Paul qualified the word gunaika with the word adelphên (the objective form of adelphê), which means “a sister,” thus making a composite expression translating literally into “a sister woman.”

To understand the meaning of the expression “sister woman,” some historical background is needed. Among the Jews, it was the custom for pious ladies to follow their spiritual masters to aid them in their domestic needs. The Gospels record the fact that pious women followed the Divine Master and served Him. In Saint Matthew’s Gospel, one reads:

And there were there many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (27:55-56).2

Likewise, Saint Luke writes:

And it came to pass afterwards, that He traveled through the cities and towns, preaching and evangelizing the kingdom of God; and the twelve with Him. And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary who is called Magdalene, out of whom seven devils were gone forth, and Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who ministered unto Him of their substance (8:1-3).

The Greek word employed by both Saint Matthew and Saint Luke referring to these pious women who followed and served Our Lord is the same word used by Saint Paul: gunaikes.3 None of the exegetes thought of translating the expression as “wives.”

To be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Translating a Protestant Agenda
Protestant reformers began to question the validity of the Latin Vulgate about this text of Saint Paul because they opposed priestly celibacy. Theodore de Beze (1519-1605), a Calvinist leader, was one of the first to replace the translation of adelphên gunaika with “sister wife.” This translation was refuted by, among others, the scholarly Catholic Scripture commentator Cornelius á Lapide (1567-1637) from the standpoint of philology as well as from a scriptural and patristic context.7

One is therefore perplexed to see such mistranslations reappear — even in versions approved by Catholic sources. This can be seen in the translation of the passage of Saint Paul in the New American Bible, which is sponsored by the Bishop’s Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In its 1970 edition, we read: “Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

This translation is totally contrary to Catholic exegetic tradition and appears to have been tailored to favor campaigns for the abolition of priestly celibacy carried out by associations of married ex-priests.

The 1991 edition of the same Bible on the web site of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops avoids the verb “to marry,” but the sense of the Protestant mistranslation favoring an end to priestly celibacy remains: “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 Kephas?”

As I wrote in the previous article, even if several Apostles had been previously married — and the only inkling found in the Scriptures relates to Saint Peter — it is certain that all of them, including the Prince of the Apostles, lived in perfect chastity after the divine calling.

Thus, in the Gospels, one reads that Saint Peter asked Our Lord:

What about us?** We left all we had to follow you**. The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents, or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life (Luke 18:28-30; cf. Matt. 19:27-30, Mark 10:20-21).

A Firm Apostolic Tradition
Rather than repeat all the arguments of the previous article, I will conclude with the words with which Father Cochini closed his accurate study of more than 400 pages, solidly establishing the Apostolic tradition on this matter:

Let us conclude that the obligation demanded from married deacons, priests, and bishops to observe perfect continence with their wives is not, in the Church, the fruit of a belated development, but on the contrary, in the full meaning of the term, an unwritten tradition of apostolic origin that, so far as we know, found its first canonical expression in the 4th century.

“Ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos quoque custodiamus” — “What the apostles taught, and what antiquity itself observed, let us endeavor also to keep.” The affirmation of the Fathers of [the Council of] Carthage [390] will remain an essential link with the origins.

 

[Tomdstone]

“Let us conclude that the obligation demanded from married deacons, priests, and bishops to observe perfect continence with their wives is not, in the Church, the fruit of a belated development, but on the contrary, in the full meaning of the term, an unwritten tradition of apostolic origin that, so far as we know, found its first canonical expression in the 4th century.”

Not true in the Greek Church as married men are allowed to be priests and have children.

 

[Tomyris]

Duane1966:
What is the manuscript evidence of the Greek? My UBS gives all the variant readings. ‘Sister’ was never in the original.

It was inserted by pro-celibacy scribes. Somehow sex made men unclean.

 

[Duane1966]

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?

Tom, there is no doubt that in the early Church both East and West if a married man became a priest they were expected to maintain perfect continence.

he Council of Elvira in Spain (310) dealt with priestly chastity (canon 33), and presented perfect continence as a norm that must be maintained and observed and not as an innovation. The lack of any revolt or surprise attested to its widespread practice.

At the Council of the Church of Africa (390) and above all at the Council of Carthage, (419), which Saint Augustine attended, similar norms were adopted. These councils recalled the ecclesiastical praxis of the obligation of perfect chastity, affirming that such praxis is of apostolic tradition.

Pope Siricius answering a specific consultation about clerical celibacy in 385 affirmed that bishops and priests who continue marital relations after ordination violate an irrevocable law** from the very inception of the Church that binds them to continence.**

 

[Tomyris]

Tom, there is no doubt that in the early Church both East and West if a married man became a priest they were expected to maintain perfect continence.

he Council of Elvira in Spain (310) dealt with priestly chastity (canon 33), and presented perfect continence as a norm that must be maintained and observed and not as an innovation. The lack of any revolt or surprise attested to its widespread practice.

 

[Duane1966]

Duane1966;13333282:

Tom, there is no doubt that in the early Church both East and West if a married man became a priest they were expected to maintain perfect continence.

Have you ever read Augustine’s ‘On Continence’? It will show you how absurd their obsession with sexual chastity was at the time. A. thinks David had no problem with lust. People would have procreated without sex. This is the same kind of thinking.

That is not the argument, I know the obsession with sexual chastity. That has nothing to do with why it is translated as wife when it comes to Apostles and certain women when it comes to Jesus. Was Jesus married? Without a doubt the Church allowed married priests, and without a doubt they were expected to practice sexual continence both East and West, from the inception of the Church.

This changed in the East at the Council of Quinisext in Trullo, but it was a late development, as that council took place in the seventh century.

The pope at the time was Pope Sergius I (687-701), who when he heard about the canons, stated that he preferred “to die rather than consent to erroneous novelties” and wrote that the Eastern bishops were the emperor’s “captive in matters of religion.” [2] It is important to note that Sergius himself was a Greek pope, hailing from Syria. If anyone knew the Eastern tradition, it was Pope Sergius. And yet he recognizes that the canons of Quinisext are not in continuity with the Eastern tradition but rather represent “erroneous novelties.” He refused to sign the canons when presented to him, for which Justinian II ordered his abduction, although the pope managed to escape.

Were a sexually active married priesthood a legitimate expression of the Eastern tradition, Pope Sergius, a Greek, would not have condemned it as a novelty.

 

[Tomyris]

Tomyris;13333293:

That is not the argument, I know the obsession with sexual chastity. That has nothing to do with why it is translated as wife when it comes to Apostles and certain women when it comes to Jesus. Was Jesus married? Without a doubt the Church allowed married priests, and without a doubt they were expected to practice sexual continence both East and West, from the inception of the Church.

Show me the verse in Scripture that says the apostles practiced sexual continence. Or that ‘priests’ or bishops’ did.

I don’t think it’s there.

Instead we find that we can separate for a time of prayer but there is a mandate that we return to our spouse, and that we have rights over our spouse’s body. No husband ever has the right to decide he is going to be celibate and then announce it to his wife. The word for that is SIN. There are conjugal rights. RIGHTS. Nothing about ‘no sex if you are an elder’. The idea is an innovation, probably as an infection of Essene aestheticism or Greek philosophy: ‘the material world is bad’.

You can argue all you want about bishops and their opinions about what is in tradition, but they disagree and read things back into Scripture. Scripture is clear.

1. Peter had a wife when he was an apostle.
2. There is nothing that says they were abstaining from marital relations. Hebrew custom and Paul’s writings strongly suggest they were not abstaining.
3. To say they were not whooping is an argument from silence, without support from Scripture.
4. Therefore apostolic precedent (and in several passage mandating marriage for presbyters and episcopoi) indicates there is NO justification for celibate marriage in Scripture.
5. Celibacy should not be a requirement for presbyters or bishops.
6. Today we find Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests married. Apparently they are ignorant of Tradition?

 

[Duane1966]

The idea that it was ‘sister’ was pushed when the church starting emphasizing celibacy over marriage, but it is clearly NOT the meaning of the word here - unless you have an agenda.

Taken from Cathiopologist:

Here is another common verse that people falsely claim and poorly translate (even in the so called Catholic Bible the NAB, which I use simply because of its readablity) Around 90% of bible poorly translate the verse.

St Paul according to poor translations of this verse declares that the Apostles have a right to marry.

1 Corinthians 9:5

numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas-Vulgate

“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?”-Douay Rheims Version

“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?”-New American Bible

“Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”-New American Bible 1970

“And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?”-New Jerusalem Bible

“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”-King James Version

“Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”-New King James

“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?”-New International Version

“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?”-New American Standard Bible

“Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”-Revised Standard Version

“Have we no right to take about with us a Christian wife, like the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”-Bible in Basic English

“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?”-American Revised Standard

“Have we not a right to take round a sister as wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”-Darby’s English Translation

“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”-Noah Webster’s

“Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”-World English Bible

“Have we not a right to take with us on our journeys a Christian sister as our wife, as the rest of the Apostles do–and the Lord’s brothers and Peter?”-Weymouth Bible Translation

“Have we not authority a sister - a wife - to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”-Young’s Literal

“For have we not the power of leading about women, like the other apostles and Cephas?”-Tertullian’s Rendering in “De Monogamy”

mh ouk ecomen exousian adelfhn gunaika periagein wV kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou kai khfaV-Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus**

μη ουκ εχομεν εξουσιαν αδελφην γυναικα περιαγειν ως και οι λοιποι αποστολοι και οι αδελφοι του κυριου και κηφας-The actual Greek text

**Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority, Alexandrian, Hort and Westcott are all exactly the same, so the issue is not in the texts themselves

This verse is a perfect example of an error in translation prevalent in the majority of Bible versions. The version best translating from the Greek is the Douai Rheims, which wasn’t even translated from the Greek! The KJV decided to try both, likely because the KJV translators used either the DRV or Vulgate. The word usually translated as wife is the Greek word gunaika, which CAN mean wife, but it can also mean ANY woman who is betrothed, married or single. It is root word isgune, which is the word Christ even uses to address His Mother as woman. Sadly this issue was resolved nearly 1900 years ago by Tertullian prior to his heresy of Monatism, in his writing on Monogamy, in which he states he finds no evidence of the Apostles having been married, save St Peter, and even goes as far as to say they were all celibates, and even QUOTES 1 Corinthians 9:5, and defends that gunaika means woman in this instance and not wife, they were like the woman who helped Jesus. Furthermore the text of 9:5 shows it DID NOT MEAN WIVES,** since it used the word “sister” rather than leaving it alone,** yet MOST translation don’t really consider this, they assume St Paul was relaying useless information by saying it was “a sister” or “believing sister,” of course a believer would follow them, so why is “sister” necessary unless St Paul was trying to clarify the meaning of the word “gunaika.” If one were to study the Aramaic/Syriac Peshitta text etc…one would find the same exact ambiguity in the word for “woman/wife” since they had the same custom as the Greeks in regards to it. Furthermore the word some translation as “marry” is just horrible work, it means take or carry, it is not the phrase used for take in marriage. Matt 27:55 uses a similar word for “women” that followed Jesus:

“And there were there many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:”-Douay Rheims Bible

ησαν δε εκει γυναικες πολλαι απο μακροθεν θεωρουσαι αιτινες ηκολουθησαν τω ιησου απο της γαλιλαιας διακονουσαι αυτω-Actual Greek

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

part 2.

hsan de ekei gunaikeV pollai apo makroqen qewrousai aitineV hkolouqhsan tw ihsou apo thV galilaiaV diakonousai autw-Transliterated of all texts

So does Luke 8:1-3

Afterward he journeyed from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. Accompanying him were theTwelve and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources.

St Jerome in Letter 150 states Luke is related to 1 Corinthian 9:5 concerning “women/wives”

Here one could possibly translate it as wives.

Here is an excerpt of 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 otherholy 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 AgainstJovianius

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

 

[Lily_Bernans]

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?

Because our High Priest, for whom our ordained priesthood act as an alter Christi, remained unmarried all his life, and he exhorted those who could do so to follow his example.

Here is a wonderfully informative article called “The Ancient Tradition of Priestly Celibacy”:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7663

 

[Duane1966]

Show me the verse in Scripture that says the apostles practiced sexual continence. Or that ‘priests’ or bishops’ did.

I don’t think it’s there.

Instead we find that we can separate for a time of prayer but there is a mandate that we return to our spouse, and that we have rights over our spouse’s body. No husband ever has the right to decide he is going to be celibate and then announce it to his wife. The word for that is SIN. There are conjugal rights. RIGHTS. Nothing about ‘no sex if you are an elder’. The idea is an innovation, probably as an infection of Essene aestheticism or Greek philosophy: ‘the material world is bad’.

You can argue all you want about bishops and their opinions about what is in tradition, but they disagree and read things back into Scripture. Scripture is clear.

1. Peter had a wife when he was an apostle.
2. There is nothing that says they were abstaining from marital relations. Hebrew custom and Paul’s writings strongly suggest they were not abstaining.
3. To say they were not whooping is an argument from silence, without support from Scripture.
4. Therefore apostolic precedent (and in several passage mandating marriage for presbyters and episcopoi) indicates there is NO justification for celibate marriage in Scripture.
5. Celibacy should not be a requirement for presbyters or bishops.
6. Today we find Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests married. Apparently they are ignorant of Tradition?

Scripture is never clear. If it were, would there be more than even one denomination? And since the scriptures we read were born out of Tradition, and I trusted the Catholic Church to get it right about the canon of the NT, I trust her memory of the Tradition of celibacy. St. Peter from scripture is the only one you can claim as being married, as none of the others are listed as being married. But Jesus seems to make clear that at least one, and it may be St. Peter, as He is addressing him here, left their wife for His sake.

If you go with that passage in Corinthians as meaning wife, then Jesus must have been married as the same Greek word is used in passages pertaining to Him.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Duane1966;13333332:

Show me the verse in Scripture that says the apostles practiced sexual continence. Or that ‘priests’ or bishops’ did.

I don’t think it’s there.

Instead we find that we can separate for a time of prayer but there is a mandate that we return to our spouse, and that we have rights over our spouse’s body. No husband ever has the right to decide he is going to be celibate and then announce it to his wife. The word for that is SIN. There are conjugal rights. RIGHTS. Nothing about ‘no sex if you are an elder’. The idea is an innovation, probably as an infection of Essene aestheticism or Greek philosophy: ‘the material world is bad’.

You can argue all you want about bishops and their opinions about what is in tradition, but they disagree and read things back into Scripture. Scripture is clear.

1. Peter had a wife when he was an apostle.
2. There is nothing that says they were abstaining from marital relations. Hebrew custom and Paul’s writings strongly suggest they were not abstaining.
3. To say they were not whooping is an argument from silence, without support from Scripture.
4. Therefore apostolic precedent (and in several passage mandating marriage for presbyters and episcopoi) indicates there is NO justification for celibate marriage in Scripture.
5. Celibacy should not be a requirement for presbyters or bishops.
6. Today we find Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests married. Apparently they are ignorant of Tradition?

It’s tradition, not Tradition because the pope could change it at any time. I doubt he, or his successors, ever will, though.

There is a precedent - our High Priest, for whom our presbytery act in alter Christi, Jesus Christ, who remained unmarried all his life and exhorted those who could follow his example to do so. What better example than Christ, himself? None.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Scripture is never clear. If it were, would there be more than even one denomination? And since the scriptures we read were born out of Tradition, and I trusted the Catholic Church to get it right about the canon of the NT, I trust her memory of the Tradition of celibacy. St. Peter from scripture is the only one you can claim as being married, as none of the others are listed as being married. But Jesus seems to make clear that at least one, and it may be St. Peter, as He is addressing him here, left their wife for His sake.

If you go with that passage in Corinthians as meaning wife, then Jesus must have been married as the same Greek word is used in passages pertaining to Him.

Jesus was not married. In Koine Greek, the same word is often used to denote familial relationships. The Bible speaks a lot of Jesus’ “sister,” who was, in reality, his aunt, also named Mary. James is often spoken of as his “brother,” when he was a cousin. As you read in Augustine, the Koine Greek word for “wife” is the same as for “woman.” There exists no evidence that Jesus was ever married or even wanted to be.

 

[Tomyris]

Scripture is never clear. If it were, would there be more than even one denomination?

There is a nonsequitor for you.

Denominations split sometimes over things that Scripture does not address.

You seek to take refuge in an alleged opacity of Scripture. Here, however, it is clear.

And since the scriptures we read were born out of Tradition, and I trusted the Catholic Church to get it right about the canon of the NT, I trust her memory of the Tradition of celibacy. St. Peter from scripture is the only one you can claim as being married, as none of the others are listed as being married. But Jesus seems to make clear that at least one, and it may be St. Peter, as He is addressing him here, left their wife for His sake.

If you go with that passage in Corinthians as meaning wife, then Jesus must have been married as the same Greek word is used in passages pertaining to Him.

No. This also is illogical.

 

[Tomyris]

Tomyris;13333375:

It’s tradition, not Tradition because the pope could change it at any time. I doubt he, or his successors, ever will, though.

There is a precedent - our High Priest, for whom our presbytery act in alter Christi

, Jesus Christ, who remained unmarried all his life and exhorted those who could follow his example to do so. What better example than Christ, himself? None.

He is not remaining unmarried:the Wedding Feast of the Lamb is coming up. Nor did he require his followers to be celibate, or his elders, even. And there is only so far the modeling our life after Christ’s can go. Otherwise we should all attempt fluency in first century Greek and Aramaic and disavow computers (as a programmer I am all for that last one, sometimes). Perhaps we should all take up carpentry.

Duane seems to be attempting the case that it is a matter of Tradition where the popes have said it is a discipline, as you point out.