I would be Catholic if ________

ebia said:

We don't know that, do we?

Click to expand...

It would be a big omission, wouldn't it?

Brooklyn Knight said:

It would be a big omission, wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

Would it? Doesn't seem so to me. Nor to TNCE: There is no direct mention of his wife or of any children, but 1 Cor 9.5 is commonly interpreted to mean that he took his wife about with him on his missionary travels.

1 Cor 9:5 (NABRE) Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Celibacy and Ministry
We know that Peter was married because Matthew, Mark, and Luke report the story of Jesus' healing Peter's mother-in-law (Matt 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38). Since it was a normal expectation that every Jew should marry, and since the first disciples were adults, we can assume that most of the apostles were married and that their wives, as Paul intimates, accompanied them on their missions. Luke mentions a number of women who accompanied Jesus during his public ministry, and some of them may have been wives of the male disciples (8:1-3). Still, it is the same Luke who has the addition of "wife" among the persons one might leave for the sake of the kingdom of God (18:29). But this might refer to those who choose not to marry.
Clerical celibacy is not therefore a requirement of apostolic origin, though Jesus and Paul were celibate. However, quite early there were those who embraced celibacy as a means of belonging more totally to the Lord and his service, a recommendation of both Paul (1 Cor 7:25-35) and Jesus, according to Matt 19:12. In some of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches, a man can marry before ordination to the priesthood but not afterward. Permanent celibacy is generally required of bishops. This tradition, it seems, rests on the symbolism of the bishop being married to the Church. In both the East and the West, celibacy was voluntarily embraced by monks and women religious. It became a requirement of diocesan priests in the Western Catholic Church only in the twelfth century. Aside from the freedom it gives to be more available to the people, celibacy of priests is a witness to the transcendent goal of the Christian life, the heavenly glorified state (+age), where there will be neither marriage nor giving in marriage (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25) and where all will be the bride of the Lamb (Rev 21:2, 9-10). That indeed is the witness of all who profess celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, First Corinthians
George T. Montague, SM

ebia said:

Would it? Doesn't seem so to me. Nor to TNCE: There is no direct mention of his wife or of any children, but 1 Cor 9.5 is commonly interpreted to mean that he took his wife about with him on his missionary travels.

1 Cor 9:5 (NABRE) Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Click to expand...

Pretty big omission considering that he is the first Pope.

Also:

In this passage Paul defends himself and the other apostles against charges from a few disgruntled people. He says he is giving "my defense to those who would examine me" (1 Cor. 9:3). He talks about a situation that applies to himself, not just to the others, yet he certainly was not accompanied by his wife, since he had no wife. We know from other testimony of his that he was unmarried. He does not speak of a theoretical marriage, one that he might someday have but does not yet have. He responds to complaints concerning whichever women actually did accompany him and his male companions. This indicates to me that "wife" is not the right translation here.


The key Greek words in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are "adelphaen gunaika." The first means "sister," and the second can be translated as either "woman" or "wife." This means the phrase translates as "sister woman" or "sister wife," with "sister" indicating not a biological but a spiritual relationship. It would make sense for the apostles to be accompanied by "sister women" who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function.



This finds support in the Fathers. "Sister woman" is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and Jerome wrote that "It is clear that [they] must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods" (Ad. Jovinian I, 26). Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6).

Click to expand...

Also, why would both Luke and Matthew fail to mention Peter's wife when Jesus helped Peter's mother-in-law? I think a distressed daughter over her mother would have surely been mentioned.

Brooklyn Knight said:

Pretty big omission considering that he is the first Pope. Also: Also, why would both Luke and Matthew fail to mention Peter's wife when Jesus helped Peter's mother-in-law? I think a distressed daughter over her mother would have surely been mentioned.

Click to expand...

Gospel accounts are almost always very highly focused with little by way of extra detail that doesn't add to the gospel meaning. I wouldn't read anything into the silence. Anyway, I've given two, three if you count NABRE itself, good catholic sources in favour of him and other apostles being married so I don't think you can maintain that the Catholic position knows that none of them were married.

George Montague on the translation issue itself: Although several of the Fathers of the Church thought Paul was referring to a woman attendant, like the women who attended to the needs of Jesus and his disciples in Luke 8:1-3, this would make the word gyn? ("woman, wife") redundant, and hence the NAB translation "wife," with the consensus of modern scholars, is correct.

FearlessHeart said:

Having said that, can anyone point to me scripture or reasons we pray for the deceased' salvation?

Click to expand...

Hey there.

I really hope you take the time to read this.


We don't though. We aren't praying for them to be saved. They already are, through faith. Its was their faith that saved them through the grace of God, them being in a state of grace that comes through faith in Jesus and all He taught and commanded us.

What we are praying for is their purification or perfection. Nothing unclean enters heaven. If you die saved but imperfect, you gotta be made perfect. Once you are dead, you can not do the acts that help you grow the love of God in you and do away with the love of self, ie selfishness, ie, for loving the way God loves.

So we pray for them, as in place of them because they can not pray for themselves. Yes, praying is a work. We "work" but not our way into heaven. Only faith gets you into heaven and faith is not only and just believing Jesus died so it' all good. It's accepting what He has done and transforming by that grace He obtained from God for us. Becoming what He redeemed us to be, true children of God. Not dung covered up but really transforming into a beautiful soul.

If you die saved but imperfect, we pray for you to ease your suffering and to be delivered from that process you are finishing. Remember when Jesus said, you won't be released until the last penny is paid? Well that is the greatest work of mercy we can do... pray for the soul of another who has died in the Lord. Not to be saved from hell but to enter heaven quickly.

And also why we pray to/and for Mary and the saints? I'm having a hard time finding scriptural references for these actions.

Click to expand...

We do not pray for the Saints or Mary because they are in heaven. Anyone who is in heaven is a saint and they no longer need prayers from us. What they have and are perfect in is love, and that is what they do, they love us with the perfect love of God and pray to God for us. They also no longer need faith or hope because they are there, they made it, so we pray to them, asking them to join their prayers with our, bring these prays to God's throne to give us what we are in need of the most, faith hope and love.

Praying to is just asking, it's not worship. Like Paul said, we are surrounded by this great cloud of witnesses, those who have gone before us.

God raises and the Church recognizes what God has done. The Church bring to our attention those who God has made great Saints to give us the faith we need to hang in there and the hope that all of this, all this we can only believe in is true, that it's really true. They show us that with God's help, we can have this perfect love of His as our own. That we can love others as He has loved us.

Up to the middle ages all priests were free to marry. (Comparable to the eo nowadays)

but because of inheritance issues celibacy was introduced. I assume that the presbytery had also belonged to the diocese. And when the priests started to inherit their houses and grounds to their eldest sons, this certainly resulted in problems.
I think celibacy for had been remained in the rcc because it's easier to administrate. You can I.e. soft a priest to another parish more easily besides other benefits (like it's cheaper if the diocese only had to pay the priest and not a huge family as well).

But I agree that obliged celibacy for priests is not biblical.