Were all the apostles married?

[friardchips]

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?

I do. You are right, of course.

The references on Wiki are Church documents or from those in authority in the Church but after having closed the page I realised that I had not included the link in my post. The problem is whenever I cite Canon Law everyone responds with: “There are many Catholic Churches”.

The are a few arguments going on here and so to list them might be a good idea:

• Was St. Peter married and if so how was this applied in the years to come.
• (i.e Were Popes able to marry.
• Can priests be married in the (Roman) Catholic Church (we know the answer) and do they have to be formally in a continual state of celibacy in order to administer the Sacraments.
• Does priestly celibacy mean priests do not sin and what is the difference between excommuncation and general sinful behaviour which is not - one poster seems to be struggling with this D)
• Can I use Roman in front of Catholic ever to assert allegiancy to Rome.
• Whether the traditions of the Church always followed the Latin Church (technically) from Biblical times.
• What are the criteria for a dispensation in the RCC for a priest to be married (some will argue against that fact that this is the case only when a priest was married).
• And how does this differ from the rules in other Catholic Churches (rites).
• What Church do Wookis belong to?
• What are the main differences in understanding between the various blends and varieties of Catholic Church or is it just that they exist in different regions of the world.
• THE BIG ONE: can and do all these questions, when answered, maybe point to the truth of St. Peter’s position in Scripture.

Question marks have been excluded for emphasis via elimination.

 

[PRmerger]

• What Church do Wookis belong to?

 

[friardchips]

 

[PRmerger]

• Was St. Peter married and if so how was this applied in the years to come.

He was married. At one time.

Was he married when he was given the office of the papacy?

No one knows.

• (i.e Were Popes able to marry.

No.

That there were 5 married popes is arguable, but even so, there is nothing which states they were married while holding the office of the Vicar of Christ.

• Can priests be married in the (Roman) Catholic Church (we know the answer)

They can already be married, and then ordained. They cannot be ordained, and then get married.

and do they have to be formally in a continual state of celibacy in order to administer the Sacraments.

No.

Married priests in the Latin rite may indeed engage in the marital embrace. With their wives.

• Does priestly celibacy mean priests do not sin

No. Priests sin all the time, even if they remain celibate.

 

[PRmerger]

• Can I use Roman in front of Catholic ever to assert allegiancy to Rome.

Of course you can.

But if you are talking about Catholics who are members of the Catholic Church, and you use Roman in front of it, you will be showing your ignorance.

For there are Maronite Catholics who are NOT Roman Catholic. And Ruthenian Catholics. And Chaldean Catholics.

And they are NOT Roman.

And if you use Roman Catholic, and you think you are including them, you will be INCORRECT.

• Whether the traditions of the Church always followed the Latin Church (technically) from Biblical times.

No. They do not.

For example, some Eastern Catholics fast from eggs and meat for the entirety of Lent.

Roman Catholics do not. At least, it is not mandated.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/375317/Rules_Regarding_Lenten_Fasting

• What are the criteria for a dispensation in the RCC for a priest to be married (some will argue against that fact that this is the case only when a priest was married).

If he is a RCC priest, he cannot marry.

 

[friardchips]

He was married. At one time.

Was he married when he was given the office of the papacy?

No one knows.

No.

That there were 5 married popes is arguable, but even so, there is nothing which states they were married while holding the office of the Vicar of Christ.

They can already be married, and then ordained. They cannot be ordained, and then get married.

No.

Married priests in the Latin rite may indeed engage in the marital embrace. With their wives.

No. Priests sin all the time, even if they remain celibate.

I’d concur with all except two answers which argue (in bold) although this conflict is not reflected because of a lack of info. in the first bolded sentence.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d concur with all except two answers which argue (in bold) although this conflict is not reflected because of a lack of info. in the first bolded sentence.

Sorry. But I can’t decipher what you are saying.

Can you please rephrase?

 

[friardchips]

Sorry. But I can’t decipher what you are saying.

Can you please rephrase?

Okay, well the contradiction is this: if a priest cannot be ordained and then get married in the RCC it will be for reasons to do with the celibate life being an imitation of our Lord (chastity) - to be in a spiritual state suitable for marriage to Him (ordination).

If priests in the RCC who were already married could engage in physical relations with their wives then this would argue with the very reasons why priests cannot get married after being ordained (as above).

I am not sure you are correct in that married men, apart from in the Ordinariate, can become priests anyway, unless widowed or an annulment has taken place, in which case, the married man is not married anymore - this might well be the only case in which dispensations are granted but is such a dispensation even needed if so.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, well the contradiction is this: if a priest cannot be ordained and then get married in the RCC it will be for reasons to do with the celibate life being an imitation of our Lord (chastity) - to be in a spiritual state suitable for marriage to Him (ordination).

If priests in the RCC who were already married could engage in physical relations with their wives then this would argue with the very reasons why priests cannot get married after being ordained (as above).

I am not sure you are correct in that married men, apart from in the Ordinariate, can become priests anyway, unless widowed or an annulment has taken place, in which case, the married man is not married anymore - this might well be the only case in which dispensations are granted but is such a dispensation even needed if so.

This man was ordained apart from the Ordinariate.

freerepublic.com/focus/news/925813/posts

 

[friardchips]

This man was ordained apart from the Ordinariate.

freerepublic.com/focus/news/925813/posts

Interesting. Further down the article it reads that St. Pope JPII opened the way for some ministers from other Churches if moving over to the RCC to become priests if married.

Although this is not the Ordinariate (a transitional bridge for Anglicans moving over), this does seems to be a similar move for those arriving from other denominations, specifically.

I think we (you) have finally traced the case for special dispensations in the RCC.

 

[friardchips]

Again, I think this points to what you said earlier, PR, about priests ‘choosing’ celibacy rather than being controlled. Because many could say: “Is this fair that those arriving from other denominations could end up being allowed to serve as priests AND keep their marriage - isn’t this the best of both worlds?!” However, this only highlights the special sacrifice of those already in the RCC who have chosen to make the beautiful sacrifice of literally giving up the world for our Lord.

It might be useful to know if such ministers moving over from other denominations who are married and allowed to become priests in the RCC are still able to share physical relations with their wives.

 

[Tomdstone]

Second, it was Tomdstone’s contention that 39 popes were married. .

This of course is a falsehood and a possibly dishonest misrepresentation of what I wrote. I never contended any such thing. Let’s take a look at these two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Tom points out that there is an article which says that 39 Popes were married, but he doesn’t say whether he agrees with it or not. (post #122)
Scenario 2: Tim contends that 39 Popes were married and then to support his contention , Tim gives a reference which gives reasons why that is true.
If Peter Plato is unable to see the distinction between the two scenarios, I hope at least that there will be some here who are able to understand the difference.
What i have done is contained in scenario 1.

 

[PRmerger]

This of course is a falsehood and a possibly dishonest misrepresentation of what I wrote. I never contended any such thing. Let’s take a look at these two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Tom points out that there is an article which says that 39 Popes were married, but he doesn’t say whether he agrees with it or not. (post #122)
Scenario 2: Tim contends that 39 Popes were married and then to support his contention , Tim gives a reference which gives reasons why that is true.
If Peter Plato is unable to see the distinction between the two scenarios, I hope at least that there will be some here who are able to understand the difference.
What i have done is contained in scenario 1.

It may seem that way to you, but when we read your post below, the natural conclusion was that you were promoting #2.

how does one explain the fact that 39 Popes were married?
johnshuster.com/thirtynine_popes.htm

 

[Peter_Plato]

how does one explain the fact that 39 Popes were married?
johnshuster.com/thirtynine_popes.htm

So what you are saying is that “one” need not “explain the fact” at all, but that it is a legitimate response to merely recategorize “facts” as “contentions” and ignore them?

This of course is a falsehood and a possibly dishonest misrepresentation of what I wrote. I never contended any such thing. Let’s take a look at these two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Tom points out that there is an article which says that 39 Popes were married, but he doesn’t say whether he agrees with it or not. (post #122)
Scenario 2: Tim contends that 39 Popes were married and then to support his contention , Tim gives a reference which gives reasons why that is true.

Then, you would accept there existed no need to “explain the fact” since it was never intended to be presented as “a fact,” at all?

Why even ask “How does one explain the fact that 39 Popes were married?” to begin with, then?

If Peter Plato is unable to see the distinction between the two scenarios, I hope at least that there will be some here who are able to understand the difference.
What i have done is contained in scenario 1.

Could you, then, flag those “facts” you are proposing as actual “facts,” as opposed to the “facts” you are proposing as mere assertions concerning alleged facts that aren’t really facts but still need to be explained – why they would be called “facts” by you in the first place remaining a mystery?

Perhaps my inability to see the distinction is created by the fact that there would be no pressing need to explain “facts” when, in fact, they aren’t facts at all. :newidea:

 

[Tomdstone]

So what you are saying is that “one” need not “explain the fact” at all, but that it is a legitimate response to merely recategorize “facts” as “contentions” and ignore them?

Then, you would accept there existed no need to “explain the fact” since it was never intended to be presented as “a fact,” at all?

Why even ask “How does one explain the fact that 39 Popes were married?” to begin with, then?

Could you, then, flag those “facts” you are proposing as actual “facts,” as opposed to the “facts” you are proposing as mere assertions concerning alleged facts that aren’t really facts but still need to be explained – why they would be called “facts” by you in the first place remaining a mystery?

Perhaps my inability to see the distinction is created by the fact that there would be no pressing need to explain “facts” when, in fact, they aren’t facts at all. :newidea:

The article claims that 39 popes were married. Very possibly the article is not accurate. However, I do think that St. Peter, the first Pope was married.

 

[friardchips]

The article claims that 39 popes were married. Very possibly the article is not accurate. However, I do think that St. Peter, the first Pope was married.

Why, when real evidence suggests otherwise, or is it only a matter of personal opinion?!

 

[PRmerger]

The article claims that 39 popes were married. Very possibly the article is not accurate. However, I do think that St. Peter, the first Pope was married.

He was married.

But whether he was married when given the office of the Vicar of Christ, not so much.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why, when real evidence suggests otherwise, or is it only a matter of personal opinion?!

I don’t have too much more to add to the discussion except possibly an excerpt from (THE STROMATA, 7:11): “They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,”

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have too much more to add to the discussion except possibly an excerpt from (THE STROMATA, 7:11): “They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name,”

I would expect no more from St. Peter than this.

Do you have the book I asked about, Tom, in your library? The one you quoted from?

 

[Tomdstone]

I would expect no more from St. Peter than this.

Do you have the book I asked about, Tom, in your library? The one you quoted from?

There is a pretty famous (non-Catholic) theology university and library very close to me. I have a card to that library which is quite extensive in scope.