Was Peter married?

[lismore]

Pretty much. Catholics and Protestants agree that at one point he was married. However, no discussion in GT is complete without a debate about why Catholics do the things they way they do.

So Peter being married means something to doctrine or interpretation of doctrine?

If the celibacy came later due to tradition, does that mean a new tradition could come and take it back again to married popes?

 

[Tonks]

So Peter being married means something to doctrine or interpretation of doctrine?

If the celibacy came later due to tradition, does that mean a new tradition could come and take it back again to married popes?

The latter half of my statement was made in jest.

Celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church - it is not doctrine or dogma - and only within the Latin Rite. Though, to be honest, Eastern Rite Catholics in the US do not really ordain married priests. While it can be changed that does not mean that it will, of course.

I assume, of course, you know the reasons behind the initial promulgation of the priestly celibacy law.

 

[lismore]

The latter half of my statement was made in jest.

Celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church - it is not doctrine or dogma - and only within the Latin Rite. Though, to be honest, Eastern Rite Catholics in the US do not really ordain married priests. While it can be changed that does not mean that it will, of course.

I assume, of course, you know the reasons behind the initial promulgation of the priestly celibacy law.

No Friend, I was not born then. I could not be sure it would just be by reading. No 2 books would say the same.

But thanks for your message

 

[Tonks]

No Friend, I was not born then. I could not be sure it would just be by reading. No 2 books would say the same.

But thanks for your message

I suppose I could concede that the theology behind it is open to interpretation but the actual historical timeline is objective fact - and quite well documented. Not that it really matters - the practice is not going to change anytime soon discipline or not.

 

[lismore]

I suppose I could concede that the theology behind it is open to interpretation but the actual historical timeline is objective fact - and quite well documented. Not that it really matters - the practice is not going to change anytime soon discipline or not.

It depends. If there is enough grass roots support for change then the tradition the discipline is grounded on will change.

Lismore

 

[Tonks]

It depends. If there is enough grass roots support for change then the tradition the discipline is grounded on will change.

Lismore

True. However, do not confuse this tradition (small 't') with Tradition (Sacred Tradition) as they are two totally different things. The broader, lowercase useage, is appropriate in this instance as this isn't really a Catholic "Scripture + Tradition" discussion.

 

[lismore]

True. However, do not confuse this tradition (small 't') with Tradition (Sacred Tradition) as they are two totally different things. The broader, lowercase useage, is appropriate in this instance as this isn't really a Catholic "Scripture + Tradition" discussion.

I think what I meant is that a pope faced with an issue in tradition (with either a big or little t) that cannot stand any more, then the pope would give a ruling on this and in a few years this would be a new tradition. Of course im not meaning this as a criticism of your church, far from it, I just think that issues arise that need dealt with and dealt with in their context.

Lismore

 

[ScottBot]

Okay, back to the OP. Peter was married, now what?

 

[Tonks]

I think what I meant is that a pope faced with an issue in tradition (with either a big or little t) that cannot stand any more, then the pope would give a ruling on this and in a few years this would be a new tradition. Of course im not meaning this as a criticism of your church, far from it, I just think that issues arise that need dealt with and dealt with in their context.

Lismore

Incorrect. Tradition (big 'T') must be in line with previous dogma. I think that you may be misconstruing general laws of the Church and our actual teachings (ie: about Christ and Salvation).

I guess I'm confused as to the point. It could be changed but it probably will not. It has nothing to do with any sort of soteriological or eschatological discussion - nor does it have anything to do with infallibility, Papal or otherwise. So my statement is - so what?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

No finer mind than Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologia II-IIa, 88, 11)had provided stubborn opposition to those who saw celibacy rulings as part of divine law. Thomas contended that the celibacy requirement for Catholic priests was merely Church law that could be reversed by any time by papal or conciliar authority. (MacGregor pages 108-109)

Which is exactly what the Catholics in this thread thus far have said. No-one has claimed that celibacy for priests in the Latin Rite is a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church because it is not. It is a matter of Church law and if a Council or the Pope wanted to change it tomorrow it could be done easily.

The current Code of Canon Law (1983) for the Latin Rite of the Church has a great many rules and regulations in it, and not one as far as I am aware deals with doctrines or dogmas. Priestly celibacy is one matter of temporal, changeable canon law.

Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to think that these laws are good, and many Catholics believe that priestly celibacy should be changed. They are not dissenters or heretics for thinking this. Catholics must obey Canon Law but it is not a matter of Faith and we don't have to believe that it's good. However, many Catholics agree with priestly celibacy, and all they people have been doing in this thread is explaining the reasons behind it and why they support it.

The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is one among 23, and it is the only one as far as I am aware that requires priests to be celibate, as different Rites have different Codes of Canon Law.

 

[holeinone]

Which is exactly what the Catholics in this thread thus far have said. No-one has claimed that celibacy for priests in the Latin Rite is a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church because it is not. It is a matter of Church law and if a Council or the Pope wanted to change it tomorrow it could be done easily.

The current Code of Canon Law (1983) for the Latin Rite of the Church has a great many rules and regulations in it, and not one as far as I am aware deals with doctrines or dogmas. Priestly celibacy is one matter of temporal, changeable canon law.

Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to think that these laws are good, and many Catholics believe that priestly celibacy should be changed. They are not dissenters or heretics for thinking this. Catholics must obey Canon Law but it is not a matter of Faith and we don't have to believe that it's good. However, many Catholics agree with priestly celibacy, and all they people have been doing in this thread is explaining the reasons behind it and why they support it.

The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is one among 23, and it is the only one as far as I am aware that requires priests to be celibate, as different Rites have different Codes of Canon Law.

As the quotes in my previous post indicate the rule is not actually one that comes from apostolic tradition or because it is some how "more holy" to be celibate .

The decision was based first on the belief that somehow having intercourse with ones wife is dirty and sinful ( that the hands of the priest were too soiled to consecrate the bread) and that the families of priest's were inheriting church property are the actual causes.

The rule is based on superstition and practicality more than "apostoloic tradition "

 

[holeinone]

Okay, back to the OP. Peter was married, now what?

Mat 8:14
And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.


Mat 8:15
And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.