Were all the apostles married?

[Lily_Bernans]

Just as I think that any lurker would be mistaken to read your posts here, with a teeny, tiny portion of your posting history devoted to this topic, and conclude: “Tomyris has an absurd obsession with the sexual lives of the men in the early church”…

it would also be a mistake to think that the ECFs were “obsessed with sexual chastity at the time”.

With that said, I do want to make a general comment: I find it quite odd that the underlying theme here—although not explicitly stated–is: men simply cannot live without sex.

How peculiar!

I think you’re right. So far, three priests have asked me out on “dates” and they didn’t want dinner and a movie. I hope it’s needless to say I did not go, but I feel they just moved on to a woman who would, and there are plenty of those, unfortunately. (These were young priests, hopefully, they will “grow up” with a little more time in the Church.)

I do have to add that I know wonderful, dedicated priests, too, who would not think of doing such a thing. Well, they might think of it, but they wouldn’t do it!

 

[PRmerger]

I think you’re right. So far, three priests have asked me out on “dates” and they didn’t want dinner and a movie. I hope it’s needless to say I did not go, but I feel they just moved on to a woman who would, and there are plenty of those, unfortunately. (These were young priests, hopefully, they will “grow up” with a little more time in the Church.)

What the what?

You do know that it is your responsibility to apprise these priests’ superiors of their actions, yes?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

What the what?

You do know that it is your responsibility to apprise these priests’ superiors of their actions, yes?

I know it is, but I’m just not going to be that person. It’s not like they forced themselves on me or anything. I said “no, not going there,” they accepted “no.” It would be different if they were child predators or rapists, but they are just young men with still raging hormones. I told them to go to confession. They also know I’m going to be watching what they do and who they strike up friendships with.

 

[friardchips]

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.

Good morning! I am not trying to make a statement. It is just that Opus Dei was the organisation that allowed poeple to feel they could live their calling whilst still maintaining their old jobs. And it occurred to me that by people saying the apostles were married is almost the same thing. And so I made a connection to Opus Dei. Not a statement or accusation but a thought that perhaps such thinking came from those quarters. I happen to think it is true, that people can maintain everyday jobs and be Christians, and I think this can help married people to feel they are also expressing their witness. However, I think there has to be the conviction of faith in believing that there are many occasions, especially for the single person, who finds faith or who presses forward in faith, that life might need to take on a different turn in order to serve effectively. Our lord on many occasions said that if we look back then we are not fit to be His disciples. He also said to hate family, or rather, that a life lived in subdued fashion compared to following Him is something to hold in “disdain” (or as MLK said: to hold in disdain that which opposes hope - or words similar) is expected of us. So it seems funny that single men would get married and follow our Lord when this circumstance makes it very difficult. There are many saints of the world who managed to be married and serve but at the same time the single man has no weight to add pressure to the Call. St. Thomas More was married. MLK Jnr was married. Nevertheless, they were not priests. These two were politicians.

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.

I use the term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ to ensure that people understand the salute towards the Chair of St. Peter and the Magisterium. There are many ‘Catholic’ divisions such as the ‘American Catholic Church’ (a schism) and Orthodox Catholics, who (I think) do not see the Pope as the (Holy Father) of the Church, and because of this, I feel they are not ‘all embracing’, and so either they change their names from Catholic or I add Roman. It is only because of this that I use the term. But for me, Catholic and Roman Catholic in the truest sense, means the same thing. I would be happier if everyone understood Catholic to include the acceptance of the Pope as Holy Father and Servant of the Church (as I think it should and as most people understand it to be).

 

[friardchips]

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.

I think there were disciples who were women but that is different. Maybe there were couples even. But I think the apostles would have not been married. What you say about St. Peter is possible. And also the quote to do with our Lord making Himself a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven seems to be relevent here. It is pretty clear throughout from the way St. Paul talks, that he is single. And I think his ‘thorn’ was likely one of the flesh (this is a whole different thread), and this would point also to his state in life, if so.

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?

Just answered this in previous post.

 

[friardchips]

I just want to say that reading posts in which people assert without invitation their academic qualifications in order to add weight to an argument, is an irritation, because enlightenment doesn’t only come to those who have been to Uni. I have witnessed the most absurd interpretations from some people who are highly qualified with Churchy qualifications. And let us remember many saints who had the meaning of Scripture revealed to them via prayer, sacrifice and simply reading and meditating upon Scripture (grace). In order to filter out the truth from the false, we need grace. It is good to study hard but the outward manifestation of such knowledge should be the sharing and growing of knowledge with others rather than knowledge being used in such a way that, even though maybe unintentionally, seems to be put forward in order to assert lordship over another’s reasoning. Surely, if we need to know a person’s acumen then we can visit their profile page. It might even be the case then, that professors and the like, get invited to share what they know because of their experience.

 

[Tomyris]

Just as I think that any lurker would be mistaken to read your posts here, with a teeny, tiny portion of your posting history devoted to this topic, and conclude: “Tomyris has an absurd obsession with the sexual lives of the men in the early church”…

it would also be a mistake to think that the ECFs were “obsessed with sexual chastity at the time”.

With that said, I do want to make a general comment: I find it quite odd that the underlying theme here—although not explicitly stated–is: men simply cannot live without sex.

How peculiar!

That is not at all the underlying theme, although from overhearing numerous male conversations you would think, given the choice between breathing and sex, some men would pass on the breathing…

The real concern is what the text says. There have been numerous personal opinions, unsubstantiated, being thrown around, as well as some investigation. There are Catholics on both sides of the issue. I am mindful of Romans 14 - we are to respect our differences. Faithful Christians of good will can differ in their approach to big issues.

I am mindful of a passage of C.S.Lewis where he discussed discussing Mary, but here it is slightly different. I think the ‘pro-continent’ people are of good will and believe continence to be the ancient and holy practice of the early church and think anyone else is trying to corrupt it and is libertine. The, uh, noncontinental types look at the idea that this verse, in particular, can be stretched to mean ‘sister’ is stretching it, and think the whole celibacy thing was an early Hellenistic corruption of the church that should be rooted out in favor of a more authentic Christianity, and that mandatory celibacy for clergy is an inauthentic and corrupt practice of the church. I think both sides are trying to get at what the text really means, both per se and for us today.

 

[PRmerger]

The real concern is what the text says. There have been numerous personal opinions, unsubstantiated, being thrown around, as well as some investigation.

Personal opinions regarding Scripture are permitted, yes?

As far as opinions in general being unsubstantiated, well, that’s never a good thing. (I only saw one on this thread, BTW)

But I do see a lot of substantiated interpretations of Scripture, esp. with regard to the mistranslation of “wives” here.

 

[PRmerger]

The, uh, noncontinental types look at the idea that this verse, in particular, can be stretched to mean ‘sister’ is stretching it,

Well, that’s the thing about the Prot. Reformation.

It permits people to disagree with the magisterium on their own personal opinions regarding what a verse means.

And here, the parallel is that you are the magisterium telling all of us here what the correct way to view Scripture is.

Surely you’re not saying that everyone has to conform to your view of Scripture?

 

[Tomyris]

I just want to say that reading posts in which people assert without invitation their academic qualifications in order to add weight to an argument, is an irritation, because enlightenment doesn’t only come to those who have been to Uni. I have witnessed the most absurd interpretations from some people who are highly qualified with Churchy qualifications. And let us remember many saints who had the meaning of Scripture revealed to them via prayer, sacrifice and simply reading and meditating upon Scripture (grace). In order to filter out the truth from the false, we need grace. It is good to study hard but the outward manifestation of such knowledge should be the sharing and growing of knowledge with others rather than knowledge being used in such a way that, even though maybe unintentionally, seems to be put forward in order to assert lordship over another’s reasoning. Surely, if we need to know a person’s acumen then we can visit their profile page. It might even be the case then, that professors and the like, get invited to share what they know because of their experience.

Contarini sets the standard on this. He brings a lot of intelligence and knowledge into his posts and upgrades every discussion. I think a lot of the discussions around here could use an upgrade, frankly.

There is the old joke about the doctor of philosophy who was attending a concert. Someone had a heart attack and an usher called out, “Is there a doctor in the house?” Our hero stands up and says he has a doctorate in philosophy. Some of us have academic qualifications we don’t put front and center, and should not, because they do not bear on the discussion at hand. But those who do have those qualifications should post with appropriate weight, and then we can say,“that is how a Greek professor of Hebrew plays the tuba! He is INDEED worthy of the position.” That is my backwards way of trying to encourage academic heavyweights to, uh, weigh in.

I think my own personal spiritual gift is getting in the way. I am really good at it and I practice it often. :curtsey:

 

[friardchips]

Again look at what St. Paul writes. Why did St. Paul qualify the word which could be translated as woman or wife, with the word sister, if not to make clear that he is not talking about a wife? And again, why did St. Peter say they had given up everything, if they really hadn’t? And then Jesus specifically talks about giving up everything, including wife, for his sake.

Exactly. Although the text doesn’t mention ‘wife’ but “life”… and I personally think this can also come to mean everyday situations not just dramatic changes of circumstance:

*'Matthew 16:24-26 -

The Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it. What then, will a man gain if he wins the whole world and ruins his life? Or what has a man to offer in exchange for his life?”’*

 

[friardchips]

Contarini sets the standard on this. He brings a lot of intelligence and knowledge into his posts and upgrades every discussion. I think a lot of the discussions around here could use an upgrade, frankly.

There is the old joke about the doctor of philosophy who was attending a concert. Someone had a heart attack and an usher called out, “Is there a doctor in the house?” Our hero stands up and says he has a doctorate in philosophy. Some of us have academic qualifications we don’t put front and center, and should not, because they do not bear on the discussion at hand. But those who do have those qualifications should post with appropriate weight, and then we can say,“that is how a Greek professor of Hebrew plays the tuba! He is INDEED worthy of the position.” That is my backwards way of trying to encourage academic heavyweights to, uh, weigh in.

I think my own personal spiritual gift is getting in the way. I am really good at it and I practice it often. :curtsey:

There is indeed a time and place for all things. As much as I’d welcome someone with the weight of study behind them, in dialogue, if we are speaking the truth and the insight is in line with Church understanding, then why the need to exert influence in another way (to exclaim one’s qualifications). St. Paul offered his own merits but only when it was apparent that he was forced by the obstinacy of those to whom he was speaking to have to do this. The truth speaks for itself. People come to dialogue from various directions - some from an very intellectual angle and some from a simpler angle - though no angle should be void of some knowledge of Scripture, yet both will have something to offer. I certainly think that weighty posts are good but professors as much as anyone else can get as confused as anyone. People’s first point of call should be the saints and doctors of the Church and the magisterium - these are not to be replaced. Along with prayer. Professors live a valuable vocation but only if exercised in a good way. It is different for someone who is defending known dogmas or doctrines. Because to defend the good of the Church is witness. Furthermore, if doctrines are to develop, then it has to be done with a certain reverential attitude of that which has gone before. And this applies to anyone, whether a professor or not. Having qualifications does not give license to exercise power and vanity over another.

 

[Tomyris]

Exactly. Although the text doesn’t mention ‘wife’ but “life”… and I personally think this can also come to mean everyday situations not just dramatic changes of circumstance:

*'Matthew 16:24-26 -

The Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it. What then, will a man gain if he wins the whole world and ruins his life? Or what has a man to offer in exchange for his life?”’*

So “wife” isn’t only the list…

 

[Tomyris]

Personal opinions regarding Scripture are permitted, yes?

As far as opinions in general being unsubstantiated, well, that’s never a good thing. (I only saw one on this thread, BTW)

But I do see a lot of substantiated interpretations of Scripture, esp. with regard to the mistranslation of “wives” here.

It certainly was mistranslated as “sister”. I hope you agree with that.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, that’s the thing about the Prot. Reformation.

It permits people to disagree with the magisterium on their own personal opinions regarding what a verse means.

And here, the parallel is that you are the magisterium telling all of us here what the correct way to view Scripture is.

Surely you’re not saying that everyone has to conform to your view of Scripture?

So you are saying the Magisterium has determined and pronounced that it means ‘sister’?

It’s not my ‘view of Scripture’. It says what it says. I provided sources. I am not “the Magisterium”.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying the Magisterium has determined and pronounced that it means ‘sister’?

No. Think bigger. Think Principles.

You are acting as magisterium here.

It’s not my ‘view of Scripture’. It says what it says. I provided sources.

That’s what the magisterium said to Luther. And to the rest of the Reformers.

Yet the Reformers bristled at that and said, “We don’t need no magisterium to tell us what the text says, thank you very much! We are perfectly capable of reading the Scriptures and coming to our own conclusions.”

Are you saying that the Reformers couldn’t do this?

Or are you saying that we Catholics here can’t do this to you?

NB: use of the word “can’t” here is not referencing freedom/free will. Whenever I ask the above question the response is always the very diversionary, “Of course you can do what you want. Believe what you want! I can’t force you. You have free will!”

Acknowledged.

The question remains: are you saying that we Catholics can’t do this to you, where “can’t” means “shouldn’t, if you want to remain consonant with truth”, not "can’t as in “unable”.

 

[Tomyris]

No. Think bigger. Think Principles.

You are acting as magisterium here.

That’s what the magisterium said to Luther. And to the rest of the Reformers.

Yet the Reformers bristled at that and said, “We don’t need no magisterium to tell us what the text says, thank you very much! We are perfectly capable of reading the Scriptures and coming to our own conclusions.”

Are you saying that the Reformers couldn’t do this?

Or are you saying that we Catholics here can’t do this to you?

NB: use of the word “can’t” here is not referencing freedom/free will. Whenever I ask the above question the response is always the very diversionary, “Of course you can do what you want. Believe what you want! I can’t force you. You have free will!”

Acknowledged.

The question remains: are you saying that we Catholics can’t do this to you, where “can’t” means “shouldn’t, if you want to remain consonant with truth”, not "can’t as in “unable”.

It seems to me that, having lost the argument, you are shifting ground. Your response is an admission that the apostles were married and there is no indication they were continent with their wives as a matter of policy.

But I will bear with you, for a minute at least. If I say the sun rises in the east, as a result of personal observation, will you find fault with that? If I find the Bible says something, as a result of research, will you find fault with that, even if the M. has not ruled on the verse? That seems to be what you are saying.

I am not saying that I am even correct in the end. I am not dictating what you are to believe, I am not forcing my belief on you over and against your own conscience, which is what the M. does, at least to Hefele and Berengar, if not to countless others. I am not trying to intimidate you into silence by saying I am the one in power, so believe me without hesitation or I will crush you and send you to hell.

I am saying what I am finding, and I am looking at what other people are saying, and there are holes in their positions. There are scholarly doubts among authoritative Catholics - Duane admitted that he was caught there - and the word is ‘life’ not ‘wife’ - and there is no verse in the Bible showing that the apostles and elders and overseers were continent with their wives. There is no such commandment. There are verses Paul wrote in telling Timothy what to look for in elders that said married men were the ones to go after, not the single men. And it goes on and on, and this is your response: to change the subject. It is a discipline: Anglican priests are not enjoined continence and neither are Eastern Catholics or Orthodox, to my knowledge. It is man-made tradition, as has been demonstrated and admitted, not Tradition, and yet this is the answer you give: change the subject. I am to be castigated and rebuked for acting like the M., when the M. has said it is a DISCIPLINE. You have not answered my objections except to do this: change the subject.

I had thought better of you.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems to me that, having lost the argument, you are shifting ground. Your response is an admission that the apostles were married and there is no indication they were continent with their wives as a matter of policy.

But I will bear with you, for a minute at least. If I say the sun rises in the east, as a result of personal observation, will you find fault with that? If I find the Bible says something, as a result of research, will you find fault with that, even if the M. has not ruled on the verse? That seems to be what you are saying.

I am not saying that I am even correct in the end. I am not dictating what you are to believe, I am not forcing my belief on you over and against your own conscience, which is what the M. does, at least to Hefele and Berengar, if not to countless others. I am not trying to intimidate you into silence by saying I am the one in power, so believe me without hesitation or I will crush you and send you to hell.

I am saying what I am finding, and I am looking at what other people are saying, and there are holes in their positions. There are scholarly doubts among authoritative Catholics - Duane admitted that he was caught there - and the word is ‘life’ not ‘wife’ - and there is no verse in the Bible showing that the apostles and elders and overseers were continent with their wives. There is no such commandment. There are verses Paul wrote in telling Timothy what to look for in elders that said married men were the ones to go after, not the single men. And it goes on and on, and this is your response: to change the subject. It is a discipline: Anglican priests are not enjoined continence and neither are Eastern Catholics or Orthodox, to my knowledge. It is man-made tradition, as has been demonstrated and admitted, not Tradition, and yet this is the answer you give: change the subject. I am to be castigated and rebuked for acting like the M., when the M. has said it is a DISCIPLINE. You have not answered my objections except to do this: change the subject.

I had thought better of you.

Buh-bye.

 

[PRmerger]

I use the term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ to ensure that people understand the salute towards the Chair of St. Peter and the Magisterium.

This is not necessary. It is implicit in the faith that “Catholic” means there is a “salute towards the Chair of St. Peter and the Magisterium.”

There is no special subdivision of Catholics who are permitted to turn their back on the Chair of Peter.

 

[Duane1966]

It certainly was mistranslated as “sister”. I hope you agree with that.

How can we agree when Paul writes in Greek adelphaen gunaika? Adelphaen in Greek means sister. So he is either saying sister wife, which makes no sense, or he is saying sister woman, which makes sense to call a fellow female Christian, sister woman. Much more believable than sister wife. Makes even more sense if you believe St. Peter was a widower. Jesus comes into his home and no mention of his wife? His mother-in-law waits on Jesus, but not the wife? Unheard of in ancient Jewish times. From Judaism 101:

There is no question that in traditional Judaism, the primary role of a woman is as wife and mother, keeper of the household.

From Catholic.com

The key Greek words in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are “adelphaen gunaika.” The first means “sister,” and the second can be translated as either “woman” or “wife.” This means the phrase translates as “sister woman” or “sister wife,” with “sister” indicating not a biological but a spiritual relationship. It would make sense for the apostles to be accompanied by “sister women” who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function.

This finds support in the Fathers. “Sister woman” is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and Jerome wrote that “It is clear that [they] must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods” (Ad. Jovinian I, 26). Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6).

Strong’s Concordance
guné: a woman
Original Word: γυνή, αικός, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: guné
Phonetic Spelling: (goo-nay’)
Short Definition: a woman, wife, my lady
Definition: a woman, wife, my lady.