Were all the apostles married?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, and as has been discussed already, very likely that he was married and widowed before being called by Jesus to be the first Pope. Which makes the entire question moot.

Additionally, recall that in Judaism men were typically married and there would have been a dearth of unmarried men to be Apostles and successors to the Apostles. The difference between Judaism and early Christianity relative to this issue of marriage is that spreading the Gospel message was an evangelistic enterprise from the beginning, which meant marriage would have been an impediment to the mission of the Church. Judaism was not evangelistic in the same way.

So, given the evangelistic mission of the early Church and the dearth of unmarried men in Judaism which formed the backbone of the early Church hierarchy it would be expected that Jewish men cum leaders of the Church would have been married. That, however, is not a reason to insist the situation would necessarily have had to continue if the demands of spreading the Gospel and building the Church were better accomplished by those completely dedicated to that task.
 
Tomdstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is clear that St. Peter was married. Certainly other Popes were also married. What does it matter whether it was 5 or 50? For much of Church history it was perfectly fine for priests to be married. Scripture itself indicates that bishops may be married. I don’t understand those that think that the fact that Popes have been married is some kind of negative or a slur against the Church. It is simply part of our history.
 
Tomdstone said:
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,”
Click to expand...
The translation at New Advent has…

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, Remember the Lord. Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

Exactly who the “they” are that Clement refers to would be good to know. The fact that he is saying, “Remember the Lord,” to his wife seems to indicate that the event happened after the Resurrection, but not necessarily. Neither does it necessarily mean Peter’s wife was “led to death” in Rome since it could have been in Jerusalem very early in the life of the Church (Herodian persecution) or it could merely have meant before she died, i.e., led to her death by God.

Even granting you everything you wish to make of this, I don’t see the point of whether Peter was married or not. Canon Law allows even a layman to be elected as Pope, which means the requirements for the Papacy are not quite the same as those for priest or bishop.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Yes, and as has been discussed already, very likely that he was married and widowed before being called by Jesus to be the first Pope. Which makes the entire question moot.
Click to expand...
His wife was “led to death.”. Why would they lead his wife to death?
 
Peter_Plato said:
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:
Click to expand...
You are relying on something that was said in another thread almost three years ago. That’s not what I said on this thread.
 
Tomdstone said:
His wife was “led to death.”. Why would they lead his wife to death?
Click to expand...
There is no “they” in the phrase." It simply states “led to death.” Not sure of the translation and the original Greek phrase which would shed light on the meaning.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Even granting you everything you wish to make of this, I don’t see the point of whether Peter was married or not.** Canon Law allows even a layman to be elected as Pope**, which means the requirements for the Papacy are not quite the same as those for priest or bishop.
Click to expand...
Really?! Not often speechless…:eek:
 
Peter_Plato said:
So, the reason YOU brought up the ‘39 popes’ again was?

AND it was you who FIRST brought it up on this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13339407&postcount=122

Even more puzzling since YOU asked us to EXPLAIN what you NOW claim isn’t “a fact.”
Click to expand...
I didn’t claim on this thread that it was not a fact. BTW, the following post may be relevant:
TMC said:
It is clear that St. Peter was married. Certainly other Popes were also married. What does it matter whether it was 5 or 50?
Click to expand...
 
Peter_Plato said:
There is no “they” in the phrase." It simply states “led to death.”.
Click to expand...
True, there is no “they” in the phrase, but I was using the word “they” as defined in some dictionaries. Some dictionaries will give the meaning of “they” as: an unspecified person or people in general not including the speaker or people addressed: in Russia they celebrate Christmas in January.
“They” can also refer to an indefinite antecedent such as one, whoever, or anybody : if anyone wants an ice cream, they can buy one.
So IMHO, and taking into account what a dictionary says, I don’t see a difference in meaning between the two statements:
She was led away.
They led her away.
 
Peter_Plato said:
So, the reason YOU brought up the ‘39 popes’ again was?
Click to expand...
For one thing the article states the following which is relevant to the question of whether or not all or some of the apostles were married:
“St. Peter, the pope who was closest to Jesus, was married. There are three references in the Gospel about St. Peter’s wife, his mother-in-law and his family. Based on Jewish law and custom, we can safely assume that all of the Apostles, except for young John, were married with families.” To support this claim the author refers to an article in a Catholic newspaper: Padovano, A. Joseph’s Son. National Catholic Reporter. April 12, 1996.
 
PRmerger said:
Yes, but he has to be ordained before he takes the office of the Papacy.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if (no doubt shocked) said-layman is ordained first, then he ceased to be a layman before being Pope, not when he became Pope. 🤷
 
friardchips said:
Yes, but if (no doubt shocked) said-layman is ordained first, then he ceased to be a layman before being Pope, not when he became Pope. 🤷
Click to expand...
A layman can be elected pope, but he can’t be a layman and be pope.
 
friardchips said:
An ordained laymen? Ordained to be what, is the question.
Click to expand...
A layman can be selected to be Pope. Upon selection, he will then be ordained as a deacon, priest and bishop. So he is a layman when selected but is ordained before he becomes (or as he becomes) Pope.

A Cardinal, on the other hand, need not be ordained. A lay person may be elevated to Cardinal without taking on major orders. This has not happened in a couple hundred years, to my knowledge.
 
TMC said:
A layman can be selected to be Pope. Upon selection, he will then be ordained as a deacon, priest and bishop. So he is a layman when selected but is ordained before he becomes (or as he becomes) Pope.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So a layman is a layman only before he is ordained and only upon ordination can be made Pope. I suppose that deacons are still laymen even when ordained. So it could be true still to say that laymen can be made Pope, if they are deacons. It would be misleading though to state generally that a layman could be made Pope without giving the extra detail that you have just provided regarding Ordination.
 
friardchips said:
Exactly. So a layman is a layman only before he is ordained and only upon ordination can be made Pope. I suppose that deacons are still laymen even when ordained. So it could be true still to say that laymen can be made Pope, if they are deacons. It would be misleading though to state generally that a layman could be made Pope without giving the extra detail that you have just provided regarding Ordination.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that it is misleading, but that is how it works. In theory, you or I could be selected to be Pope. We would be made a bishop as part of the process of being made Pope. But I think it would still be fair to say that a layman was selected to be Pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top