Were all the apostles married?

[Tomdstone]

Yes, a “married” Catholic priest who is pushing for a married priesthood and performs “marriages” that are not recognized by the Catholic Church. Clearly a dissident former priest who now “practices” his trade with no authority from the Church.

You ought to check your sources Tom.

This is what is called in philosophy as a fallacious ad hominem argument. Anyone who has a brief acquaintance with philosophy will recognize it. The author is of the article is a bum, therefore what he has written is entirely wrong. You have confused the messenger with the message. These are things that are discussed in philosophy 101 and rhetoric 101:
The messenger: the messenger has committed a sin.
The message he brings: the message he brings is still true.
Let me give you an example of how this works;
The teacher of Euclidean geometry is a fallen away Catholic. He is a dissenter.
The teacher of Euclidean geometry shows his class why the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal in plane geometry.
The teacher is the messenger.
The theorem is the message.
The messenger is a sinner
The message is still correct.

 

[friardchips]

And it excludes all the other churches and rites which are Catholic too.

‘Catholic’ is an abbreviated form of ‘Roman Catholic’ or rather Roman Catholic is an extension due to opposition to Papal leadership ( papal service).

Absolutely incorrect. Not ALL Catholic Churches.

http://www.saintanthonyschurch.org/images/st_anthony_front.jpg

Your image is a Maronite Church.

I am not going to spend hours posting the names on the signs of hundreds of Catholic Chruches that all read ‘Roman Catholic’.

Perhaps you are a Roman Catholic. But not all Catholic are Roman Catholic.

That is what we have already discussed. There are Orthodox (Eastern) Catholics, Maronite Catholics and the American Catholic Church (that is a schism). And there is the Roman Catholic Church in which Catholics are part even though they abbreviate the term to mean Catholic unless they do not accept the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, and papal succession.

And that’s why this apostolate is not Roman Catholic Answers. Nor is the address of this forum.romancatholic.com

No, (it is known to be) an abbreviated form of Roman Catholic, for the sake of evangelisation and being inclusive.

You will be incorrect if you use it to mean the Universal Catholic Church.

You are incorrect here. The universal Church is the Roman Catholic Church which is the same as the Catholic Church and by this I mean that those who do not accept Rome do not accept the Chair of St. Peter and those who do not accept this are a break from the original Catholic Church, which, because of Papal succession that continued through to Rome, is the Roman Catholic Church. ‘Roman’ was added in order to confess our belief in the Chair of St. Peter.

If you mean one rite of the Universal Catholic Church, then you will be correct.

Please compare:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/roman-catholic-church
dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic-church

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales

To be Roman Catholic means to differentiate between those who accept the Chair of St. Peter and between those who do not. Because I accept the wonderful gift of the Church and ALL of its wonders - everything passed on from our Lord to St. Peter - I am a Roman Catholic which in its original meaning is just Catholic. Catholic means all embracing and so the way I express that is by saying Roman Catholic. To call Roman Catholics just Catholics would have been to use the original usage of the word before all the breaks from Rome by other Catholics, which I also sometimes do, yet in my heart all the time recognising that Catholic really means in accordance with papal succession from Biblical times and the developed and discovered, and realised, doctrines and Dogmas of the Universal (all embracing) Church. That is not to say that there are not other Christian Churches (other flocks) - of course there are.

 

[friardchips]

Incorrect.

freerepublic.com/focus/news/925813/posts

By this, you mean married men who went on become priest but remained celibate. There was one article by another poster that spoke of priests who are married but when so are known then to be ‘ex-clerics’.

 

[friardchips]

Duane1966:
Yes, Duane1966, according to your references, if this was the case, then it would be true to say that the married wives ceased to be wives in the normal sense as the duty of a husband and wife is to have conjugal relations.

So the wives, if this is the case, became for the sake of Heaven sisterly disciples.

We know anyway that women were disciples so I still don’t see the confusion as celibacy was the norm either way - wife or no wife, apostles were celibate in imitation of the Lord.

 

[PRmerger]

‘Catholic’ is an abbreviated form of ‘Roman Catholic’ or rather Roman Catholic is an extension due to opposition to Papal leadership ( papal service).

Nope.

Your image is a Maronite Church.

Yep.

Exactly.

It does not say Roman Catholic. Because it is NOT…

Roman Catholic.

I am not going to spend hours posting the names on the signs of hundreds of Catholic Chruches that all read ‘Roman Catholic’.

That would certainly be a waste of time.

Are you of the position that I think there’s no such thing as Roman Catholic churches in the Universal Catholic Church?

 

[PRmerger]

This is what is called in philosophy as a fallacious ad hominem argument.

LOL.

You mean it’s the* genetic fallacy*.

Disclaimer: the fact that I am pointing out your error is not to be interpreted to mean that I believe that guy. He’s clearly a dissident priest and, as such, his opinions need to be read in light of that.

 

[friardchips]

Nope.

Are you of the position that I think there’s no such thing as Roman Catholic churches in the Universal Catholic Church?

No. Obviously (I think you know that! ).

I am saying the Church that recognises the Chair of St. Peter from which all is bound and loosed IS the true universal Catholic Church. Because to accept papal succession is to accept also the revealed Dogmas and doctrines of the Church and so is ALL EMBRACING of EVERYTHING our Creator has given to us. HOWEVER, while taking this into account, I appreciate that for some bizarre reason there are Churches which separated themselves from this binding that have the audacity to still refer to themselves as Catholic rather than just Christian; however, I recognise also that they are Catholic BECAUSE they believe in some of the whole truth that we do and and I furthermore live in the hope that all will come to know our Lord with all the fullness of belief which the true Catholic and Universal Church offers and that this separation from the belief in papal succession will not be like this forever.

 

[PRmerger]

That is what we have already discussed. There are Orthodox (Eastern) Catholics, Maronite Catholics and the American Catholic Church (that is a schism). And there is the Roman Catholic Church in which Catholics are part even though they abbreviate the term to mean Catholic unless they do not accept the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, and papal succession.

No, (it is known to be) an abbreviated form of Roman Catholic, for the sake of evangelisation and being inclusive.

You are incorrect here. The universal Church is the Roman Catholic Church which is the same as the Catholic Church and by this I mean that those who do not accept Rome do not accept the Chair of St. Peter and those who do not accept this are a break from the original Catholic Church, which, because of Papal succession that continued through to Rome, is the Roman Catholic Church. ‘Roman’ was added in order to confess our belief in the Chair of St. Peter.

Please compare:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/roman-catholic-church
dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic-church

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales

To be Roman Catholic means to differentiate between those who accept the Chair of St. Peter and between those who do not. Because I accept the wonderful gift of the Church and ALL of its wonders - everything passed on from our Lord to St. Peter - I am a Roman Catholic which in its original meaning is just Catholic. Catholic means all embracing and so the way I express that is by saying Roman Catholic. To call Roman Catholics just Catholics would have been to use the original usage of the word before all the breaks from Rome by other Catholics, which I also sometimes do, yet in my heart all the time recognising that Catholic really means in accordance with papal succession from Biblical times and the developed and discovered, and realised, doctrines and Dogmas of the Universal (all embracing) Church. That is not to say that there are not other Christian Churches (other flocks) - of course there are.

Lurkers: there are so many errors in the above. Please be aware.

I am not in the mood to address all of them, but please note. The Orthodox Church is NOT the same as those who are members of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.

The former is not part of the CC. The latter is.

There is no “abbreviation” of Roman Catholic to “Catholic”.

We are Catholic Answers here.

Not Roman Catholic answers.

 

[friardchips]

Lurkers: there are so many errors in the above. Please be aware.

I am not in the mood to address all of them, but please note. The Orthodox Church is NOT the same as those who are members of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.

The former is not part of the CC. The latter is.

There is no “abbreviation” of Roman Catholic to “Catholic”.

We are Catholic Answers here.

Not Roman Catholic answers.

.

You did not have time to read my links and so it is obvious that you shouldn’t be putting yourself into such a position as allows you to attempt educating others on a public forum when you do not bother to read those sources which others take the time to provide in demonstrating why they believe what they do. If you think I need educating on the matter then please do it charitably otherwise don’t bother.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is what is called in philosophy as a fallacious ad hominem argument. Anyone who has a brief acquaintance with philosophy will recognize it. The author is of the article is a bum, therefore what he has written is entirely wrong. You have confused the messenger with the message. These are things that are discussed in philosophy 101 and rhetoric 101:
The messenger: the messenger has committed a sin.
The message he brings: the message he brings is still true.
Let me give you an example of how this works;
The teacher of Euclidean geometry is a fallen away Catholic. He is a dissenter.
The teacher of Euclidean geometry shows his class why the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal in plane geometry.
The teacher is the messenger.
The theorem is the message.
The messenger is a sinner
The message is still correct.

Yes, this is a nice portrayal of an ad hominem. Unfortunately, that isn’t quite the issue here.

The “married” priest has a vested interest in promoting the side of “married” priests. He adamantly favors the abolition of priestly celibacy and has shown that even being stripped of his faculties by his bishop will not stop him from promoting his cause. He will even “marry” Catholics that he knows will not be considered licitly married by the Church when he completes his “ceremony.” It isn’t that he is merely a “messenger” for the truth, his message is, itself, a tainted one because he is willing to promote it regardless of its truth value. We have reason to suspect that he might tamper with the message because his hands are not exactly clean and he is not exactly a neutral third party. He positively wills the message to be read to favour a particular side. Which is why I suggested you check your sources.

Notice, he claims 39 popes were married, but does not positively name a single one who was so the claim could be validated. He provides a reference, true, but that reference isn’t what I would call “friendly” to the papacy, either. I am merely insisting the claim be cross-checked because it is of dubious genesis. Notice, I never said it was false, merely that the sources need to be questioned because they have a vested interest in a particular view AND, therefore, the prima facie value of the claim is questionable.

A proper response from you would be to come up with stronger evidence and support for YOUR claim. Which 39 Popes were married and how do we know? Absent that, your claim is dubious.

 

[Peter_Plato]

.

You did not have time to read my links which state the FACTS and so it is obvious that you shouldn’t be putting yourself into such a position as allows you to attempt educating others on a public forum when you do not bother to read those sources which others take the time to provide in demonstrating why they believe what they do.

Why not, then, link to an official Catholic source which can corroborate your claim rather than relying on what those outside the Church claim ABOUT her?

PR is correct about your post, by the way. There are errors in it.

For one, the American Catholic Church is not in a schism situation, it is positively heretical in the same way that Arianism was heretical. Their issue in not simply with the authority of the Papacy (which is what a true schism is.) Their issue is that the Church teaches as dogma and doctrine a number of things with which they part company. The fact that they claim Apostolic succession is neither here nor there. A number of Arian bishops in the fourth century could also claim Apostolic Succession, but that does not make Arianism a schism, it is still heresy because it targets the actual teachings of the Magisterium, not the authority of the Pope, except secondarily.

 

[friardchips]

PRMerger, please read (all of) this:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
*
'So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.

Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary “Christian denomination”–not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.

The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called “the Christian Church,” either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called “The Oxford Book of the Christian Church,” the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.’*

It is what I said (links provided). However, I have learnt today that there are some Churches which are not called ‘Roman’ Catholic that do accept papal succession - I did not know this - and so now I can see why people use the term Catholic instead of Roman Catholic. Though my conscience is still okay with using ‘Roman’ at specific times. I might though, use ‘Catholic’, more often now as it adds weight to say Catholic and speak in defence of papal succession. I am glad you persisted with this line of topic. Thank you.

 

[friardchips]

Why not, then, link to an official Catholic source which can corroborate your claim rather than relying on what those outside the Church claim ABOUT her?

PR is correct about your post, by the way. There are errors in it.

For one, the American Catholic Church is not in a schism situation, it is positively heretical in the same way that Arianism was heretical. Their issue in not simply with the authority of the Papacy (which is what a true schism is.) Their issue is that the Church teaches as dogma and doctrine a number of things with which they part company. The fact that they claim Apostolic succession is neither here nor there. A number of Arian bishops in the fourth century could also claim Apostolic Succession, but that does not make Arianism a schism, it is still heresy because it targets the actual teachings of the Magisterium, not the authority of the Pope, except secondarily.

Hi. I have responded to both your arguments in the previous post to PR. Thanks for the response! Roman is used, although maybe not in its original usage, to assert one’s belief in papal succession (the reason why I use it). But I get the jist that it is not necessary. I do use the term Catholic too and will do so more now that I am reminded of other Catholic Churches who do acknowledge papal succession and doctrines and dogmas. I feel more comfortable in this knowledge because ‘Catholic’, sensibly, shouldn’t need a qualifier. If Catholic means ‘all embracing’ then it should speak for itself. Thanks again!

 

[PRmerger]

By this, you mean married men who went on become priest but remained celibate.

sigh.

No.

 

[PRmerger]

. However, I have learnt today that there are some Churches which are not called ‘Roman’ Catholic that do accept papal succession - I did not know this - and so now I can see why people use the term Catholic instead of Roman Catholic. Though my conscience is still okay with using ‘Roman’ at specific times. I might though, use ‘Catholic’, more often now as it adds weight to say Catholic and speak in defence of papal succession. I am glad you persisted with this line of topic. Thank you.

 

[friardchips]

sigh.

No.

So are you telling me that there are priests who can be in league with Rome that can also be married…come on?! Because other than the options given for such a scenario:

 

[friardchips]

 

[PRmerger]

So are you telling me that there are priests who can be part of a Catholic Church that can also be married…come on?! If so, prove it. Beause other than the options given for such a scenario, this seems incorrect.

*Other than the options? * LOL!

That’s like saying: Only Penicillin VK can treat strep throat!

When options are given, such as: Keflex, Zithromax, Amoxicillin…

The response is: Other than the options given, it seems correct to say that ONLY Penicillin VK can treat strep throat.

Well, ok. If you want to say it like that. “Other than the options”…

 

[friardchips]

*Other than the options? * LOL!

That’s like saying: Only Penicillin VK can treat strep throat!

When options are given, such as: Keflex, Zithromax, Amoxicillin…

The response is: Other than the options given, it seems correct to say that ONLY Penicillin VK can treat strep throat.

Well, ok. If you want to say it like that. “Other than the options”…

As you said in one post, it is a matter of choosing to be celibate, not having it forced. By that, this means that we care enough to remain celibate or to become celibate. The other option is not holy. Other than the Ordinariate, a priest choosing married life is not an option which is true to the Call - a priest is married to the Lord in a spiritual way. And so yes, the option to get married can be looked down upon as mere ‘option’ because it is something far inferior to that of a WHOLE-hearted dedication to priestly service. My opinion, and I’m sure many would agree, is that celibacy is absolutely essential for administering the Sacraments and so the heart-felt and truly well discerned option is to not be a priest if one intends to engage in physical union with another. Celibacy, and even marriage with celibacy, if one is still acknowledging the marriage is as it was but just without sex, is not a suitably holy arrangement. I am sure the saints and all the Popes and most of the ‘CATHOLIC’ rolleyes laity would concur.

 

[PRmerger]

As you said in one post, it is a matter of choosing to be celibate, not having it forced. By that, this means that we care enough to remain celibate or to become celibate. The other option is not holy. Other than the Ordinariate, a priest choosing married life is not an option which is true to the Call - a priest is married to the Lord in a spiritual way. And so yes, the option to do get married can be looked down upon as mere ‘option’ because it is something far inferior to that of a WHOLE-hearted dedication to priestly service. My opinion, and I’m sure many would agree, is that celibacy is absolutely essential for administering the Sacraments and so the option is to not be a priest if one intends to engage in physical union with another. Celibacy, and even marriage with celibacy, if one is still acknowledging the marriage is as it was but just without sex, is not a suitably holy arrangement. I am sure the saints and all the Popes and most of the ‘CATHOLIC’ rolleyes laity would concur.

All of the above is a nonsequitur to my post.