Why cant priests marry when Peter, the first Pope, was married?

[minion]

Topic, tyia

Strikes me as strange, when Peter, and the Levitical priesthood were married.

I heard something like “celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma” which essentially says to me “because the church says so” but i dont find that answer very convincing or satisfying.

 

[ilovejebus]

Finally some one is thinking. They did so that their little cult members wouldn’t have kids so that the company would get their land.

Now they blame the LGBT community for there sick and twisted acts. This cult is only about power and control. You don’t need a god to know you should feed the poor and not murder. Hell they have a god and that didn’t keep them from murdering innocent people and only helping the poor if they converted. Just like they only helped the jews who converted during the Holocaust.
Of course common church people can be good MLK JR for one but i am not attacking common sheep i am attacking the monarchy which is what it is.

These idiots really believe Gandhi is going to hell cause he isn’t in there little perverted club

 

[ErricFiggy]

Finally some one is thinking. They did so that their little cult members wouldn’t have kids so that the company would get their land.

Now they blame the LGBT community for there sick and twisted acts. This cult is only about power and control. You don’t need a god to know you should feed the poor and not murder. Hell they have a god and that didn’t keep them from murdering innocent people and only helping the poor if they converted. Just like they only helped the jews who converted during the Holocaust.
Of course common church people can be good MLK JR for one but i am not attacking common sheep i am attacking the monarchy which is what it is.

These idiots really believe Gandhi is going to hell cause he isn’t in there little perverted club

Wow, the nasty trolls come out at night

 

[Warloff]

The Church has never regularly allowed priests to marry, but it has allowed married men to become priests. This is a discipline of the Church and not a dogma. In the Eastern Rite married men may become priests.

In the Latin Rite it makes sense for married men not to be priests because so much is demanded of priests, they follow the example of Christ, and because the Church considers chastity to be holy.

 

[vsedriver]

Topic, tyia

Strikes me as strange, when Peter, and the Levitical priesthood were married.

I heard something like “celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma” which essentially says to me “because the church says so” but i dont find that answer very convincing or satisfying.

It’s not strange when you realize that Jesus was never married and he’s the new high priest. A priest is expected to imitate Christ, not Peter.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Good point. A married man may make a better preacher. He certainly knows what Hell is like.

 

[Elizium23]

It’s not strange when you realize that Jesus was never married and he’s the new high priest. A priest is expected to imitate Christ, not Peter.

That’s not really an argument. The priests of the Eastern Churches imitate Christ just as well. The priests of the Catholic Church in pre-celibacy days imitated Christ fine. It is not a sacramentally required thing, but it is the time-honored discipline and tradition of the Latin Church, so we keep it up. There are good reasons for celibacy other than “imitating Christ”.

I believe an important factor in the imposition of celibacy was the question of inheritance. The Church wanted to keep her proprerty and not have it pass into the hands of potentially hostile relatives.

 

[marty1818]

The fact that St. Peter had a mother-in-law only tells us that he was married at some point. Beyond that we do not know anything else. It’s possible he could have been a widower.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Being a discipline not a dogma means it is a practice that could change, not something written in stone like the teaching on the Divinity of Christ.

 

[Elizium23]

Being a discipline not a dogma means it is a practice that could change, not something written in stone like the teaching on the Divinity of Christ.

It could change, but is extremely unlikely to change in the Latin Church, as the practice has only changed once in 2000 years. I would say that even in the face of a wholesale reunion with the whole Orthodox communion the Latin Church would not be forced to change her discipline of priestly celibacy to appease them. Currents against a married priesthood are so strong now that even the Eastern Churches are being refused in the United States. No, this is one discipline that won’t be gone with the wave of a pen. I think we are seeing the full extent of the exceptions now, with the Anglican Ordinariates joining us. It is unlikely that the exceptions will be expanded much further in our lifetime.

 

[Snowball7]

The fact that St. Peter had a mother-in-law only tells us that he was married at some point. Beyond that we do not know anything else. It’s possible he could have been a widower.

You need to do more reading.St. Peter was married for over 50 years,
his wife Perpetua travelled with him to Rome, she died a martyr and
their daughter, Petronilla, died in AD 98. This is attested by early Church
historian Eusebius and by the apocryphal Acts of Peter (where she appears
frequently)
Also, Clement of Alexandria recorded her martrydom earlier in
the Miscellanies (Book VII): He writes that as Peter saw Perpetua led
away to her death, he was "glad that her call had come and that she
was returning home…[and] in the most encouraging and comforting of tones
he called her by name and said “My dear, remember the Lord”.

 

[PaulVF]

An interesting topic.

Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. This means that the Church could change the rule. In fact, there are a few instances when the Church has allowed married clergy, such as with some Eastern rite clergy and in the case of some Protestant ministers who converted to the Faith.

The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century (1022) Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.

It was not until the first Council of the Lateran (1123) that marriage of the higher clergy was declared not only unlawful but invalid.

 

[PaulVF]

Good point. A married man may make a better preacher.

A case in point. In the parish I once lived in, our pastor was believed to be secretly married. He was the most revered and respected priest in our parish. The fact as whether he actually was or not married never became a point of contention; on the contrary. We saw him as being to better understand the trials that came with married life. His guidance and wisdom helped so many of us.

Did he violate Church doctrine? Perhaps yes. Was his lifestyle (if in fact true) sinful? I’ll let God be the judge of that.

But in my heart and those of his parishioners he will always be remembered as a good friend and a godly servant of Christ.

 

[PJM]

=minion;10236880]Topic, tyia

Strikes me as strange, when Peter, and the Levitical priesthood were married.

I heard something like “celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma” which essentially says to me “because the church says so” but i dont find that answer very convincing or satisfying.

yes; but perhaps a bit more clear when explained as a "Church Practice; not a Faith teaching [pertaining to everyones salvation issue].

Church practices CAN and at times Do change. Doctrines and Dogma cannot.

So the “church” could change its position on this issue; BUT here is why it very likely will NOT happen.

Being 2,000 years old [or young as us older folks think of it], the Chuch Fathers have learned a great deal from practical experience. We’ve done it “both ways.” And the consencus is that it is BETTER both for the “Church” and even the priest to not be married.

**1st. Cor. 7: 31-35 **“And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.”

As Paul rightly notes, it’s a matter of priorities. IF God IS first??? Then it is prudent and beneficial to MAKE GOD FIRST.

A second critical point is that NO-ONE; NO-BODY is FORCED AGAINST THEIR OWN FREEWILL to become a priest. They do so in answer to God’s call and are given by GOD ALL of the grace they eed to live this life.

So it’s a “win-win” condition.

Thanks for asking,
pat/PJM

 

[PaulVF]

As Paul rightly notes, it’s a matter of priorities. IF God IS first??? Then it is prudent and beneficial to MAKE GOD FIRST.

A second critical point is that NO-ONE; NO-BODY is FORCED AGAINST THEIR OWN FREEWILL to become a priest. They do so in answer to God’s call and are given by GOD ALL of the grace they eed to live this life.

pat/PJM

Not to be contentious as I agree with most of what you say, but your closing 2 statements make me wonder.
Is the western Church then saying then that some priests of the eastern rite (and also some converted Protestants) are not putting God first by marrying?

Though nobody is ‘forced’ to become a priest we are All given God’s grace to answer His call, each in our own unique ways.

 

[marty1818]

St. Peter was married for over 50 years,
his wife Perpetua travelled with him to Rome, she died a martyr and
their daughter, Petronilla, died in AD 98. This is attested by early Church
historian Eusebius and by the apocryphal Acts of Peter (where she appears
frequently)

Neither Eusubius or Clement were contemporaries of St. Peter. The sources may or may not be reliable. Either way the only thing we are told in the Bible is that St. Peter was married at some point.

 

[Rolltide]

An interesting topic.

Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. This means that the Church could change the rule. In fact, there are a few instances when the Church has allowed married clergy, such as with some Eastern rite clergy and in the case of some Protestant ministers who converted to the Faith.

The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century (1022) Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.

It was not until the first Council of the Lateran (1123) that marriage of the higher clergy was declared not only unlawful but invalid.

I work as an historian. The reasons that celibacy were imposed were actually much greater than that. It became one of the cornerstones of the famous “Cluny Reform Movement”, and was actually something of a grassroots reform. There were several problems with married priests. First, since education was so poor, the few priests that there were often had to perform Mass on a circuit that involved several manors. As a result, they wouldn’t be in the same place for very long. Their taxing schedule made being married and raising a family very difficult (and prone to affairs and the like). Secondly, there was the problem of some priestly families living a “high lifestyle”. On larger manors that could support their own priest, sometimes the family of the priest had a household that was almost as grand as the lord of the manor. Sometimes, wives or family members would also spend funds donated in to the church (there wasn’t really a collection plate back then, as they just had church taxes) on their personal lifestyle. The third, and arguably largest problem, was simony and nepotism. Priests had influence, and they could use it to give their sons an unfair advantage in gaining either secular or religious positions (frequently with bribes skimmed from the church’s tax money). Simony and nepotism were the greatest problems of that era, and the reason the reform movement started in the first place. It basically came to a head with the Investiture Struggle, where Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire tried to appoint bishops and priests without the permission of the pope. This resulted in a ban on lay investiture as well, and much tighter rules for investiture by the clergy. Other reforms of the time included the College of Cardinals, and the beginning of seminaries (since many priests were poorly educated, and barely knew the faith themselves).

 

[PaulVF]

I work as an historian. The reasons that celibacy were imposed were actually much greater than that. It became one of the cornerstones of the famous “Cluny Reform Movement”, and was actually something of a grassroots reform. There were several problems with married priests. First, since education was so poor, the few priests that there were often had to perform Mass on a circuit that involved several manors. As a result, they wouldn’t be in the same place for very long. Their taxing schedule made being married and raising a family very difficult (and prone to affairs and the like). Secondly, there was the problem of some priestly families living a “high lifestyle”. On larger manors that could support their own priest, sometimes the family of the priest had a household that was almost as grand as the lord of the manor. Sometimes, wives or family members would also spend funds donated in to the church (there wasn’t really a collection plate back then, as they just had church taxes) on their personal lifestyle. The third, and arguably largest problem, was simony and nepotism. Priests had influence, and they could use it to give their sons an unfair advantage in gaining either secular or religious positions (frequently with bribes skimmed from the church’s tax money). Simony and nepotism were the greatest problems of that era, and the reason the reform movement started in the first place. It basically came to a head with the Investiture Struggle, where Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire tried to appoint bishops and priests without the permission of the pope. This resulted in a ban on lay investiture as well, and much tighter rules for investiture by the clergy. Other reforms of the time included the College of Cardinals, and the beginning of seminaries (since many priests were poorly educated, and barely knew the faith themselves).

I appreciate the background on this topic; very informative. Especially these three important points you bring up; 1) taxing schedule, 2) a former “high lifestyle” and 3) simony and nepotism. However, as they are not relevant in today’s Church, why would they still preclude the clergy from marrying?

Interestingly, points 2 &3 were used as part of the justification for the Protestant split from the Church.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It is also a problem with priests assigned to missions overseas or in dangerous neighborhoods. You can ask a priest to put himself in danger as a single, celibate man which would be more difficult if he had to put a wife and children in the same danger.

 

[fred_conty]

It is a higher call to be single and the spiritual life of a priest should be better.
Therefore it is better to keep it since a priest is chosen to be a shepherd and a dedicated to his people in need of his counsol and prayers.

Just a thought.