Papal Marriage?

[Matt Black]

Some dates to start with:

49: Jews expelled from Rome because of disturbances between Christians and other Jews, including the Christian preachers Priscilla and Aquilla.

c. 55: Paul writes 1 Corinthians, mentioning that Peter's wife accompanies him on his missionary journeys.

c. 57: Paul writes Romans, to the Christian church in Rome.


It seems to me inescapable looking at these dates, that Peter was still married and not yet a widower when the church of Rome was founded.
This would mean either that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, or that he did not recognise the discipline that required unmarried bishops.

Is this a problem for Catholicism? We can be reasonably sure that Peter was indeed married. The pope claims to the successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome. Catholic clergy and bishops also claim apostolic succession. Therefore, why the ban on marriage for Catholic clergy and bishops when the person from whom they claim spiritual descent was in fact a married person?


Yours in Christ

Matt

[Archangel]

You can read the articles on celibacy in the reference section: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=7096"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=7096[/url]

[kateri05]

i thought Peter left his wife when he started to follow Christ? what part of 1 Corinthians is that? regardless, who cares if Peter had a wife (which he did), the disciple of celibate clergy has its roots in scripture (which more qualified people can explain than I, namely that celibacy for the kingdom is to be revered above all) AND practicality: a man can't serve two masters. your family or your parish (diocese, church, etc): someone would get the short end of the stick

[Matt Black]

If we want to talk Scripture, then, what do you make of I Tim 3:2 - that a "bishop must be husband of one wife"?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Cam42]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='May 13 2005, 05:45 AM'] If we want to talk Scripture, then, what do you make of I Tim 3:2 - that a "bishop must be husband of one wife"?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
It isn't a problem at all.....the Church hasn't always recognized celibacy as a discipline of priests. St. Augustine was one of the first bishops to employ this discipline.

Being celibate is not an infallible teaching nor is it intended to be. It is a misconception to think that married priests or bishops is outside the realm of the Church. It most certainly is not.

It is not employed today, nor will it be. The priesthood is celibate and the previous Holy Father has spoken to this and reaffirmed that today's priests will remain as such.

It has always been tradition that bishops were bishops in the east were monastic and are not married. However, I am sure that this was a development as well.

Finally, I would say this....there are Eastern Catholic priests who are married today. So, the charism of celibacy extends to the Latin rite. But it isn't exclusive to us. There are Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests who are not monks and are not married. Hmmm...

Cam

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='May 13 2005, 07:45 AM'] If we want to talk Scripture, then, what do you make of I Tim 3:2 - that a "bishop must be husband of one wife"?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
God Bless bro,

It is not that a bishop must have a wife, it's that a bishop must not be married more than once.

Not married at all fits this... also, this is a discipline and giving up everything for Christ is the type of priests that Christ's Church wants.

Please see this page:
[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html[/url]

[b]Matt. 19:11-12 [/b]- Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

[b]Matt. 19:29[/b] - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

[b]Matt. 22:30 [/b]- Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

[b]1 Cor 7:1[/b] – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

[b]1 Cor. 7:7[/b] - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

[b]1 Cor. 7:27[/b] – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

[b]1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 [/b]- Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “[b]who refrains from marriage will do better[/b].”

[b]1 Tim. 3:2 [/b]- Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

Here's another link:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_a..._Priesthood.asp[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='May 13 2005, 06:54 AM'] Some dates to start with:

49: Jews expelled from Rome because of disturbances between Christians and other Jews, including the Christian preachers Priscilla and Aquilla.

c. 55: Paul writes 1 Corinthians, mentioning that Peter's wife accompanies him on his missionary journeys.

c. 57: Paul writes Romans, to the Christian church in Rome.


It seems to me inescapable looking at these dates, that Peter was still married and not yet a widower when the church of Rome was founded.
This would mean either that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, or that he did not recognise the discipline that required unmarried bishops.

Is this a problem for Catholicism? We can be reasonably sure that Peter was indeed married. The pope claims to the successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome. Catholic clergy and bishops also claim apostolic succession. Therefore, why the ban on marriage for Catholic clergy and bishops when the person from whom they claim spiritual descent was in fact a married person?


Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
Did you expect Peter to abandon his wife?

[Matt Black]

No, certainly not! But would he have had to abandon his wife to become Pope today?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Edited May 13, 2005 by Matt Black

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='May 13 2005, 10:42 AM'] No, certainly not! But would he have had to abandon his wofe to become Pope today?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
I do not believe that there are any married Cardinals are Bishops. There are some married priests. I do not believe that any other Rite can become Pope, but I'm unsure. I don't think anyone outside of the Latin Rite has become Pope.

God chooses the Popes through the voting. Since there are no married bishops/cardinals, then I do not believe this is an issue... we can look to see what Popes were married before 1270 AD (I think is the date), and that would tell you.

I believe the Early Church Fathers (pupils of the Apostles and other first disciples) have written about this topic. I'll try to find some stuff for you.

Also check out [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url] and [url="http://www.Catholic.com"]http://www.Catholic.com[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 13 2005, 07:24 AM'] Did you expect Peter to abandon his wife? [/quote]
Christ specifically mentioned that some might be required to give up their families, I expect Peter would have done whatever was required of him.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 13 2005, 08:50 AM'] I do not believe that there are any married Cardinals are Bishops. There are some married priests. I do not believe that any other Rite can become Pope, but I'm unsure. I don't think anyone outside of the Latin Rite has become Pope.

God chooses the Popes through the voting. Since there are no married bishops/cardinals, then I do not believe this is an issue... we can look to see what Popes were married before 1270 AD (I think is the date), and that would tell you.

I believe the Early Church Fathers (pupils of the Apostles and other first disciples) have written about this topic. I'll try to find some stuff for you.

Also check out [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url] and [url="http://www.Catholic.com"]http://www.Catholic.com[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
You technically don't have to be a Cardnial to be Pope and certianly you don't have to be Latin rite. Theoreticly the Cardinals could vote for any confirmed Catholic Male.

But by the way there are no bishops of other rites which are married either, the Eastern Rites have always allowed married priest but have for centuries disallowed married bishops.

[Matt Black]

Do unmarried bishops though not go against Paul's above injunction to Timothy and Peter's above practice? That's really the point of the OP - since Peter who it is claimed was the first Bishop of Rome was married, and since Paul refers to bishops being married, does not the modern requirement for bishops to be unmarried fly in the face of that?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Brother Adam]

Not at all. Remember, an unmarried ordained priesthood in the Latin rite of the Church is a pratice, not a doctrine. Marriage is good and holy (Eph 5:21-33), but celibacy is also praised (Mt 19:12; Jer 16:1-4; 1 Cor 7:8,32-35; 2 Tim 2:3-4; 1 Tim 5:9-12).

If the Church says at the current time all priests and bishops of it's Latin rite will be celibate, and of course to become a priest in the Latin rite is completely voluntary, it is praiseworthy. Remember, Bishops and priests do not see celibacy as a curse or burden, but a gift and blessing from God. As marriage is a vocation, so is a calling to the ordained ministry and the Lord gives the gifts needed to heed to that calling.

I have no problem believing it is possible for Peter to have been the Bishop of Rome and married at the same time. Perhaps one day the Lord may will for this to happen again and the practice will be changed, but I find it unlikely.

Unmarried bishops do not go against Paul's words for the reason that it is a practice. And no where is it taught that a Bishop must be married. 1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Brother Adam

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Matt,

Peace. Just a quick question. You do know the difference between a discipline and a doctrine right?

A discipline can change at any moment. For instance no meat on fridays type of stuff.

A Doctrine cannot be changed.

[musturde]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 13 2005, 08:50 AM'] I do not believe that there are any married Cardinals are Bishops. There are some married priests. I do not believe that any other Rite can become Pope, but I'm unsure. I don't think anyone outside of the Latin Rite has become Pope.

God chooses the Popes through the voting. Since there are no married bishops/cardinals, then I do not believe this is an issue... we can look to see what Popes were married before 1270 AD (I think is the date), and that would tell you.

I believe the Early Church Fathers (pupils of the Apostles and other first disciples) have written about this topic. I'll try to find some stuff for you.

Also check out [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url] and [url="http://www.Catholic.com"]http://www.Catholic.com[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Even eastern Catholics allow priests to be married only before becoming a priest and you can not be a bishop if you are married (at least in the Maronite rite).