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).

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='musturde' date='May 13 2005, 06:42 PM']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).[/quote]
As was mentioned above, the entire Eastern Tradition of Christianity (i.e. both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) restricts the office of bishop to celibate/un-married men.

An interesting document from the Vatican:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html"]The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy[/url]

[musturde]

cool, thnx mat.

[Matt Black]

Yes, I know the hierarchy of doctrine concept; but the distinctions begin to become blurred when the discipline or practive [i]appears [/i]to go against doctrine as revealed in Scripture

Yours in Christ

Matt

[son_of_angels]

I don't think it is so much that Eastern bishops must be celibate, but that they are traditionally monastic, which, of course, implies celibacy. The reason for this, I think, is as a sort of check and balance, choosing the humblest to serve at the highest service. Perhaps it would be a handy tradition in selecting the pope and our own bishops as well, choosing monks instead of these new age parish priests and so forth. Pope Gregory the Great, for example, was a lifelong Benedictine and abbot of several monasteries, so the tradition of monastic bishops has some roots in the West as well, before there was so distinct a division.

That being said, I don't see why there could not be occasional exceptions both for the priesthood and the bishopric, especially with men who have been married Permanent Deacons for over, say, ten to fifteen years. However, in neither the East nor the West has a priest or a bishop been allowed to marry while in the clergy. It is simply not appropriate, take it from a former Baptist, for young priests to become the targets for every elderly woman in a church wanting their daughter and/or grandaughter to marry the lovely new pastor. Can't people have a little pity?

[CatholicCid]

Here's a reply to this from another Forum... Dunno, i found it good.

So why can't women be president? Why can't women be Navy Seals? There you have some good politcal arguments. But then there's some other ones to look at: Why can't women be priests? And hey, why can't men...have...children....Ummm.....Oh ya, because they cant!

Men and women are complementary to each other. There is a word that we don't hear near enough in our world today, a world so obsessed with being equal (not that thats bad!) even hypocritically so at times(which is bad- whole other topic).

I'll put a view on this that my Dad was telling me- Men in the priesthood hold the role of initiation , as they do in conception. Women have the role of receival and fruition, as they do in conception as well. Without one or the other, there is no result, no meaning. The same goes if one has the same abilities as the other- no meaning.

Men and women were intelligently designed to be united, just as they were designed to be completely different beings. In this world that is so bent on political correctness it may be hard to imagine things "restricted" from women (like the priesthood) or from men (like having kids) but the thing is that not one is better than the other, not one has more "power" than the other. They are different creations with different abilities, and their different abilities complement the other's.

Women saints in the Church (without a doubt in MY mind) have done more for the extension of God’s kingdom than any other entity in the Church. The saints wield the fullness of God’s power in the Church, not priests! The fact is, men and women are different... and beautifully so!!

Christ was no bigot. Rather than bestow Holy Orders on his Mother, who was completely without sin, or upon Mary Magdalene, who at the least followed him to the Cross… he chose to give that ministry to his Disciples. Men that were as prone to sin as you or I; indeed their leader, the first Pope appointed by GOD, denied that he even knew Jesus Christ! But so it is.

Some might say it would be too “radical” if Jesus had ordained women for his time period. I say POPPYCOCK! Jesus proclaimed on a hilltop that people had to eat his flesh and drink his blood, the most heinous sin and defilement in the Jewish faith, if they were to have life at all. And people ran from him in the thousands. He would not have thought twice about ordaining women, if He did not have some purpose not to. Check out that other link for the crazy sweet connections, props to Chip!

And to close, just on a personal note, God is a Lover. Jesus was, for lack of a better term, the most intense guy to walk the earth. There is such a thing as perfect charity, and (ladies especially) I would love to chat w/ you about it but ya pm me or phone or sumthin would be better or else I will get carpal tunnel haha. But there is this love that leads men to want to serve to the best of their ability!

Surely you have had some person that you want to just say “Come, sit in this chair by the fire, let me put your feet up and get you some hot cocoa, I love you. Don’t bother yourself working on that- I will do it, I just want to be near you and share your company because…I love you!”
Well that love exceeds all bounds in God. And as given by Christ, the sacrificing of the Eucharist by priests is the most intimate and telling way he (and Christ through him!) can minister to his sisters in Christ.

I have experienced some of this. A pure love of my sisters that makes me just want to serve them in the greatest way possible, and it is no mistake of God’s to give us the priesthood for just that, Blessed be He!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, this discussion has gone all over the place. First of all, I do not think that women shouldn't be priests because they couldn't lead a parish. Women in the Old Testament led entire tribes. I don't think women should be priests, but the idea that they should not be priests because they cannot lead seems very wrong to me, having known a few women in particular.

I do agree with the idea that men and women have different roles in the Church. What I really don't agree with in this discussion is the attitude that being a priest is about having power and getting things out of it. THis is completely wrong-headed. Priests are the servants of their parishioners. The Pope's actual title is "Servant of the servants of God." THe priesthood is not about having power, it is about bringing others to Christ, as are all of our vocations. Our vocation in life is not to get whatever we can out of it, but to bring glory to God through our sacrifices and our struggles.

Frankly, it really disturbs me that something as minor as this could actually cause someone to switch to another religion. You guys, Catholicism has the fullest deposit of Truth on Earth. And one religion is NOT as good as any other religion. It's funny that there is all this discussion about Anglicanism, because there is only an Anglican Church because a fat old king (who, I might add, had very little respect for women) wanted to divorce his wife and wasn't allowed. He wanted to leave the Church for a trivial reason too. Anglicanism is not just like Catholicism, and anyone who would seriously consider switching from the religion they believe is right to a different religion over a tiny thing like this should reevaluate where they stand in their faith. If you're willing to give up your faith over something this trivial, how important is it in your life? I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I'm just saying that this is not a monumental issue that should lead you away from the faith, and if it does, something is wrong.

We all have difficulties at some time with some of the Church's teachings. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, if we never question, how are we to grow in our faith and seek the Truth as Christ calls us to? I personally often wonder why the Church teaches what it does in a variety of areas. Even if I can't see the logic, I'm not going to abandon the faith that God gave me or the Church he led me too.

Also, I am studying to do a report on Anglicanism for Tuesday. The sacrament they have are not the same as ours. Many of them are merely seen as sacramentals, helpful, but not necessary. This is a stark contrast to the teachings of Catholicism.

-----------------------------------------------