Peter's wife

[The Biblicist]

Mk. 1:30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

1 Cor. 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

We all know how Rome attempts to reinterpret the half-brothers and sisters of Christ as "cousins" when they are found only in an immediate family context of Joseph and Mary without one word of mention of any other mom or dad or other parents. What about the "Fathers"?

1. The Stromata: "They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and clled very encouragingly and comfortingly, adddressing her by name, 'Remember thou the Lord." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 541

1. On Monogamy: "Peter alone do I find - through the mention of 'mother-in-law' to have been married." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 65

However, Paul is arguing for the right of any apostle to be married including himself in 1 Cor. 9:5.

 

[Zenas]

Mk. 1:30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

1 Cor. 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

We all know how Rome attempts to reinterpret the half-brothers and sisters of Christ as "cousins" when they are found only in an immediate family context of Joseph and Mary without one word of mention of any other mom or dad or other parents. What about the "Fathers"?

1. The Stromata: "They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and clled very encouragingly and comfortingly, adddressing her by name, 'Remember thou the Lord." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 541

1. On Monogamy: "Peter alone do I find - through the mention of 'mother-in-law' to have been married." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 65

However, Paul is arguing for the right of any apostle to be married including himself in 1 Cor. 9:5.

And your point is? Or (to drop the snark) where are you going with this post? I don't really see the connection between Peter having a wife and Jesus having (or not having) brothers and sisters.

 

[Sapper Woody]

And your point is? Or (to drop the snark) where are you going with this post? I don't really see the connection between Peter having a wife and Jesus having (or not having) brothers and sisters.

I am pretty sure he is trying to debunk the two Catholic teachings that Mary was a virgin until death, and that Peter was the first Pope.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am pretty sure he is trying to debunk the two Catholic teachings that Mary was a virgin until death, and that Peter was the first Pope.

Exactly! Required celebacy is as much as a false doctrine as Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness - all Roman rubbish built upon superstition and false traditions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Exactly! Required celebacy is as much as a false doctrine as Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness - all Roman rubbish built upon superstition and false traditions.

Required celebacy is an administrative tool that only applies to the Roman Rite of the 23 Roman Catholic Rites that exist. Celebacy for the priesthood is required for the Roman Rite to avoid other issues such as dynasty building etc... The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church the priest are allowed to marry. But preistly marriage in the West Caused issues the Church wanted to avoid. So its clear you don't even understand about the Church's requirement for celebacy for the Episkopos and the Presbyters but not for the Deaconate.

 

[The Biblicist]

Required celebacy is an administrative tool that only applies to the Roman Rite of the 23 Roman Catholic Rites that exist. Celebacy for the priesthood is required for the Roman Rite to avoid other issues such as dynasty building etc... The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church the priest are allowed to marry. But preistly marriage in the West Caused issues the Church wanted to avoid. So its clear you don't even understand about the Church's requirement for celebacy for the Episkopos and the Presbyters but not for the Deaconate.

Who cares what kind of rationale Rome uses to violate the scriptures??? Peter was a married man.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Who cares what kind of rationale Rome uses to violate the scriptures??? Peter was a married man.

There is no violation of Scriptures because the scriptures say 1 Cor 7:8

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

And just before Paul is saying that he would prefer that some were as he is ie celibate.
Jesus himself says

Matthew 19:12 (RSV)
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

So there are no scriptural prohibition against a celebate clergy.

 

[Zenas]

Exactly! Required celebacy is as much as a false doctrine as Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness - all Roman rubbish built upon superstition and false traditions.

No one denies that Peter was married. Like TS said, it is merely an administrative requirement. The Church doesn't maintain that it is doctrinally or scripturally necessary. In fact, there is a handfull (maybe 200 or 300) of married men who are serving as priests in the Latin rite in this country.

So don't say the Catholic Church believes that celebacy is a doctrinal necessity for its priests. It is no different from many (perhaps most) Baptist churches who have a rule that their pastors can't use beverage alcohol. There is no scriptural basis for it but the rule stands because the churches want it that way. And, no, don't give me Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. These passages requred a pastor who is not addicted, not one who is a total abstainer.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no violation of Scriptures because the scriptures say 1 Cor 7:8

A red herring! No one has denied the scriptures PERMIT celibacy except for ROME and Rome violates the permission of marriage provided in the qualificaitons for Biship - 1 Tim. 3:1.n

However, the very method of your argumentation exposes the very rotten foundations of Roman Catholic eisgetical methods to defend their paganism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A red herring! No one has denied the scriptures PERMIT celibacy except for ROME and Rome violates the permission of marriage provided in the qualificaitons for Biship - 1 Tim. 3:1.n

However, the very method of your argumentation exposes the very rotten foundations of Roman Catholic eisgetical methods to defend their paganism.

No red herring. Just the truth. God has nothing against a celebate clergy. You created a read herring by suggest that God does have something against a celibate clergy. You once again have taken scripture out of Context. Paul isn't requiring that a Bishop has to be married but that if a bishop is married he is to be the husband of one wife.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no violation of Scriptures because the scriptures say 1 Cor 7:8
And just before Paul is saying that he would prefer that some were as he is ie celibate.
Jesus himself says So there are no scriptural prohibition against a celebate clergy.

there IS against it being a requirement though!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

there IS against it being a requirement though!

No. Because that verse

I Timothy 4:1-3

doesn't single out clergy and the Catholic Church does not condemn marriage for members of the Church, she requires that certain people who wish to assume certain positions within her voluntarily accept celibacy. This is celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, something which is supported by verses discussed above.

BTW that verse does apply to the Albigensians whom the Landmarkist claim baptist come from.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. Because that verse doesn't single out clergy and the Catholic Church does not condemn marriage for members of the Church, she requires that certain people who wish to assume certain positions within her voluntarily accept celibacy. This is celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, something which is supported by verses discussed above.

BTW that verse does apply to the Albigensians whom the Landmarkist claim baptist come from.

again, the bible supports a person agreeing to themselves to remain celibete as that is their :"Gift", but NOT a requirement by God , as NOT all pastors will have that gift!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

again, the bible supports a person agreeing to themselves to remain celibete as that is their :"Gift", but NOT a requirement by God , as NOT all pastors will have that gift!

The Catholic clergy office and its requirements are voluntary. Period. You would have a point if the Catholic church forbade its members to married and forced people into the priesthood. But it doesn't do that. Celibacy is voluntary so your argument falls flat and scriptures does not teach against someone choosing to be celibate. You've created a common read herring.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Catholic clergy office and its requirements are voluntary. Period. You would have a point if the Catholic church forbade its members to married and forced people into the priesthood. But it doesn't do that. Celibacy is voluntary so your argument falls flat and scriptures does not teach against someone choosing to be celibate. You've created a common read herring.

Again, the bible allows for them to choose to either celibate OR marry and have children!

Either way does NOT affect the calling to be a pastor from God!

 

[Wittenberger]

Again, the bible allows for them to choose to either celibate OR marry and have children!

Either way does NOT affect the calling to be a pastor from God!

I have to side with the evangelicals, here, my Catholic brother.

The priests were allowed to marry up until about 1,000 AD. It should be a personal choice for each priest and pastor.

Mandatory celibacy has had the unintended consequences of high numbers of pedophiles and homosexuals fleeing to the safety of the clergy to continue their life styles.

Let the priests marry! Lutherans will never reunite with the RCC while this rule is in effect.

 

[Sapper Woody]

The only thing I can see Biblically that would appear to say that a Pastor couldn't remain celibate is the "husband of one wife" phrase in the requirements for pastor. Now, if you interperet that as only meaning not divorced or a polygamist, then that trequirement goes away.

Now, outside a Biblical mandate, I feel that it is very unwise to try and shepherd a flock while single. Firstly, every man will deal with sexual frustration, and denying it for a time does not relieve him of that frustration, it only multiplies it. This will lead to greater temptation.

Also, there then comes the point about being an expert in something you've never experienced. Which would you rather have performing surgery on you? A doctor who has done it several times, or a doctor who has never done it but has read about it extensively? It's the same with marriage counseling, advice in raising children, etc. A man might have knowledge of it, but how is he to give counsel if he's never experienced it?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Catholic clergy office and its requirements are voluntary. Period. You would have a point if the Catholic church forbade its members to married and forced people into the priesthood. But it doesn't do that. Celibacy is voluntary so your argument falls flat and scriptures does not teach against someone choosing to be celibate. You've created a common read herring.

And your statements are a dodge. If a person does decide to go into the priesthood, he is forced into celibacy. This is a doctrine and practice straight from hell.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Catholic clergy office and its requirements are voluntary. Period. .

The Bible makes CELIBACY only an OPTION for those who desire to be a Bishop while APPROVING non-celibate men for Bishop "must be....THE HUSBAND of one wife" but does Rome make it an OPTION? No! Does Rome APPROVE non-celibate men for Bishop? No!

Instead, Rome twists the scripture and makes the choice to be between Celibacy or the office of Bishop! Thus what you are saying is a flat lie!

Again, this is precisely the kind of mental gymnastics used to justify all of Romes apostate teachings!