Were all the apostles married?

[friardchips]

Incorrect I see very few churches although there are some with the adj roman in their names. From the article How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

The origin of the term Roma is from the Anglican circles so it is not surprise that the British dictionary would carry on with dubious origin or Roman.

Yes, I know. This was not my original point. However, you will find it difficult to see any Catholic Church which does not say Roman Catholic, in the U.K.

It would be correct to say that because St. Peter went to Rome and succession lasted from that point on, in Rome, that the Latin Church is the Catholic Church but with sister Catholic Churches, thus making up, the universal and all encompassing Catholic Church.

I have, too, also provided these links, and you have quoted one part of it, and the other part says my angle. Also, if you read the Wiki links I gave earlier, they give a clear history of what I have, with some exasperation, been trying to explain (though some confusion was also cleared up thanks to some other posters).

Those who built the Churches in the U.K were not the writers of dictionaries (well, they might have been, I suppose).

 

[friardchips]

You do understand now that the chastity/celibacy/continence/sinfulness of a priest is NOT ESSENTIAL to administering the sacraments, yes?

A simple yes or no would be satisfactory.

You are mixing contexts and so it would be wrong for me to enter further into misleading dialogue.

 

[TMC]

Why would a married priest have to refrain from sex with his spouse? The belief that he should seems to fall into the fallacy that sex is somehow inherently improper or unclean. That is simply not true, and not Catholic teaching. There is no reason for a married priest to abstain from marital relations.

 

[PRmerger]

You are mixing contexts and so it would be wrong for me to enter further into misleading dialogue.

LURKERS: please be aware that what was asserted about celibacy (or chastity or continence) being ESSENTIAL to the administration of the sacraments is INCORRECT.

You can be assured that even if your priest is a sinner, what he administers to you in the form of the sacraments is valid.

 

[adrift]

Yes, I know. This was not my original point. However, you will find it difficult to see any Catholic Church which does not say Roman Catholic, in the U.K.

It would be correct to say that because St. Peter went to Rome and succession lasted from that point on, in Rome, that the Latin Church is the Catholic Church but with sister Catholic Churches, thus making up, the universal and all encompassing Catholic Church.

I have, too, also provided these links, and you have quoted one part of it, and the other part says my angle. Also, if you read the Wiki links I gave earlier, they give a clear history of what I have, with some exasperation, been trying to explain (though some confusion was also cleared up thanks to some other posters).

Those who built the Churches in the U.K were not the writers of dictionaries (well, they might have been, I suppose).

I should have read everything. I was just about to delete this post but since you have answered it I won’t.
I read everyone of your links.
The first link stated Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name
Ironically, I felt they disputed your claim. and supported what others were saying to you.

 

[friardchips]

LURKERS: please be aware that what was asserted about celibacy (or chastity or continence) being ESSENTIAL to the administration of the sacraments is INCORRECT.

You can be assured that even if your priest is a sinner, what he administers to you in the form of the sacraments is valid.

Unless of course he is exccommunicated officially which in that case would mean his actions were illicit.

 

[PRmerger]

I felt they disputed your claim. and supported what others were saying to you.

Yep. Pretty much.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless of course he is exccommunicated officially which in that case would mean his actions were illicit.

LURKERS: if you are attending Mass with a priest who has been excommunicated officially, please stop doing so!

 

[friardchips]

I should have read everything. I was just about to delete this post but since you have answered it I won’t.
I read everyone of your links.
The first link stated Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name
Ironically, I felt they disputed your claim. and supported what others were saying to you.

So you missed the point about why it is that the term is still used by Catholics? It said that this usage, when used for the right reasons, is not incorrect. You are right in that the history of the term was brought on by Anglicans (or so some report) and so could be seen as incorrect and unnecessary and this was also stated (EWTN links). Thanks for reading my posts, btw.

The Wiki links demonstrated how Catholicism is generally seen as the Roman Catholic Church. And I reiterate my thinking in terms of the line of succession. Many claim that other ‘rites’ or ‘Churches’ are in league with Rome, yet, while being, they seem to have different rules over a few things including Canon Law. Because I see the Latin/Roman Church has being the direct link to Biblical times, it would seem logical to say that all the Latin Church incorporates is true. However, the links to state clearly that we are not to see the Roman Catholic Church as superior. But when the idea of priests being actively married with families is purported to be true of Eastern Churches I can’t help feeling very loyal to the Roman Catholic Church specifically. However, if such feelings go against what is purported by the Roman Catholic Church, as being a good way to see things, then I correct my understanding. Although you see the irony, right?

 

[friardchips]

LURKERS: if you are attending Mass with a priest who has been excommunicated officially, please stop doing so!

Of course, they would have to know this. Otherwise, why would they stop.

 

[friardchips]

Yep. Pretty much.

Some, not all.

 

[PRmerger]

So you missed the point about why it is that the term is still used by Catholics? It said that this usage, when used for the right reasons, is not incorrect. You are right in that the history of the term was brought on by Anglicans (or so some report) and so could be seen as incorrect and unnecessary and this was also stated (EWTN links). Thanks for reading my posts, btw.

The Wiki links demonstrated how Catholicism is generally seen as the Roman Catholic Church. And I reiterate my thinking in terms of the line of succession. Many claim that other ‘rites’ or ‘Churches’ are in league with Rome, yet, while being, they seem to have different rules over a few things including Canon Law. Because I see the Latin/Roman Church has being the direct link to Biblical times, it would seem logical to say that all the Latin Church incorporates is true. However, the links to state clearly that we are not to see the Roman Catholic Church as superior. But when the idea of priests being actively married with families is purported to be true of Eastern Churches I can’t help feeling very loyal to the Roman Catholic Church specifically. However, if such feelings go against what is purported by the Roman Catholic Church, as being a good way to see things, then I correct my understanding. Although you see the irony, right?

I think this is timely…a coincidence (or the Holy Spirit’s intervention)?..that I just happen to be listening to this podcast:

catholic.com/audio-player/32177

And listen at the 13:00 minute through the 15th.

Exactly what I’ve been saying.

“We don’t call ourselves Roman Catholic Answers”–Patrick Coffin
“To call ourselves Roman Catholic Answers would be a misnomer”. “We are simply the Catholic Church”.–Tim Staples

Refutes quite clearly what you’ve been saying, chips.

 

[friardchips]

I think this is timely…a coincidence (or the Holy Spirit’s intervention)?..that I just happen to be listening to this podcast:

catholic.com/audio-player/32177

And listen at the 13:00 minute through the 15th.

Exactly what I’ve been saying.

“We don’t call ourselves Roman Catholic Answers”–Tim Staples

Refutes quite clearly what you’ve been saying, chips.

I don’t acknowledge quite a few American apologists. Not into Church celebrityism. Some things I’ve read from Staples have been okay, some lacking. I would prefer Church documents and actual proof than self-acclaimed apologists. He could do with a new title: “I don’t, and a number of people I know don’t, and…”

Check this:

*'Clerical celibacy is the discipline by which only unmarried men are ordained to the episcopate, throughout the Catholic Church, to the priesthood (as a rule to which exceptions are sometimes made for individuals) in some autonomous particular Churches, and similarly to the diaconate, though in this last case exceptions exist not only for single individuals but for whole categories of people. The other autonomous particular Churches, the discipline applies only to ordination to the episcopate.

Chief of the Catholic particular Churches that follow this discipline is the Latin Church, but, among the Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Ethiopic Catholic Church applies it also.

In this context, “celibacy” retains its original meaning of “unmarried”. Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as “a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour.”[1]

Throughout the Catholic Church, East as well as West, a priest may not marry. To become a married priest, one must therefore marry before being ordained.

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, without exception, rule out ordination of married men to the episcopate and marriage after priestly ordination (clerical marriage).

The law of clerical celibacy is considered[by whom?] to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. Exceptions are sometimes made, especially in the case of married Protestant clergymen who convert to the Catholic Church, and the discipline could in theory be changed for all ordinations to the priesthood.’*’

 

[friardchips]

*'Exceptions to the rule of priestly celibacy[edit]

Exceptions to the rule of celibacy for priests of the Latin Church are sometimes granted by authority of the Pope, when married Protestant clergy become Catholic. Thus married Anglicans have been ordained to the Catholic priesthood in personal ordinariates and through the United States Pastoral Provision. Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical law and not a doctrine, it can, in principle, be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, both Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors have spoken clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice was not likely to change.[59]

Richard McBrien says that the existence of these exceptions, along with the declining number of priests in active ministry (in McBrien’s North America and in Europe, although on a worldwide scale the number has since 2000 been increasing steadily,[60][61][62] reversing the downward tendency of the 1970s and 1980s, not yet fully undone)[63] and the reported cases of non-observance of the norm (a phenomenon with a history of many centuries) will keep discussion on the subject going, and that questions are asked with regard to the impact of celibacy on the human development of the clergy and with regard to the maintenance of the obligation in countries where celibacy is viewed negatively.[64]’*

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t acknowledge quite a few American apologists. Not into Church celebrityism. Some things I’ve read from Staples have been okay, some lacking. I would prefer Church documents and actual proof than self-acclaimed apologists.

Check this:

*'Clerical celibacy is the discipline by which only unmarried men are ordained to the episcopate, throughout the Catholic Church, to the priesthood (as a rule to which exceptions are sometimes made for individuals) in some autonomous particular Churches, and similarly to the diaconate, though in this last case exceptions exist not only for single individuals but for whole categories of people. The other autonomous particular Churches, the discipline applies only to ordination to the episcopate.

Chief of the Catholic particular Churches that follow this discipline is the Latin Church, but, among the Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Ethiopic Catholic Church applies it also.

In this context, “celibacy” retains its original meaning of “unmarried”. Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as “a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour.”[1]

Throughout the Catholic Church, East as well as West, a priest may not marry. To become a married priest, one must therefore marry before being ordained.

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, without exception, rule out ordination of married men to the episcopate and marriage after priestly ordination (clerical marriage).

The law of clerical celibacy is considered[by whom?] to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. Exceptions are sometimes made, especially in the case of married Protestant clergymen who convert to the Catholic Church, and the discipline could in theory be changed for all ordinations to the priesthood.’*’

What Church document is the above from?

 

[friardchips]

What Church document is the above from?

WIKI! WIKI! WIKI!

I trust this more because if you look at the researched books, the sources for the article, they are many. I did look to see who the author was but couldn’t find a name. I will go back and see. However, go and see the list of references and be happy!

 

[friardchips]

WIKI for WOOKIs!

 

[PRmerger]

WIKI! WIKI! WIKI!

I trust this more because if you look at the researched books, the sources for the article, they are many. I did look to see who the author was but couldn’t find a name. I will go back and see. However, go and see the list of references and be happy!

So you want Church documents to support our views, but you use Wiki to support your opinion?

LOL!

 

[Duane1966]

Unless of course he is exccommunicated officially which in that case would mean his actions were illicit.

Illicit yes, but still valid.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You did actually…D) tell me to find different sources when I posed articles from Wiki, suggesting that I post articles which are not from those ‘outside’ the Church, and so, by you using Wiki too, you are stating that I, too, provided disputable facts?

Let’s think clearly about the difference between what you are trying to do and what I am.

First, you are trying to prove a contention – exactly what that contention is, isn’t entirely clear – so it would be nice to hear what the Church actually teaches or holds before we accept whether those outside the Church (e.g. Wikipedia) have their facts straight. So you claiming the Church teaches or claims X requires that you show that it does, not that Wikipedia claims it does.

Second, it was Tomdstone’s contention that 39 popes were married. He claimed that fact based upon a dubious article that cited a questionable reference. No actual facts or evidence were provided for the claim. In order to demonstrate that the claim was a questionable one, I cited Wikipedia which did contain some specific factual evidence which I stated could function as a starting point to help determine whether Tomdstone’s 39 popes claim had any support whatsoever. Clearly, if a source such as WIkipedia – which is not exactly friendly to Catholicism – comes nowhere close to claiming 39 popes were married, then we have another reason to doubt Tomdstone’s initial claim.

I was not seeking to definitively prove a positive statement, but merely to put into further doubt a questionable one. He is free to look into the matter further and cite more reliable sources and evidence. As far as I am concerned he hasn’t established with any degree of certainty that his initial claim stands up to scrutiny. It doesn’t.

As for you, you are trying to make a positive claim, one that requires the actual position of the Church to be demonstrated. Wikipedia does not function as a definitive source for that. It does, however, quite adequately function to put into doubt Tomdstone’s positive claim.

I have made no positive claim. I didn’t say, for example, “Five popes were married and here’s the definitive proof.”

See the difference?