Wasn't Peter Married?


#1

Wasn’t Peter married? The Bible says he was.

Matthew 8:14 says, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”


#2

[quote=big_guy144]Wasn’t Peter married? The Bible says he was.

Matthew 8:14 says, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”
[/quote]

What’s your point?


#3

Not only - but also:

One of the Greek Fathers, Origen did enjoin self-castration; he took this to be the meaning of Matt. 5: 29,30, and while a youth deprived himself of his virility in order to avoid the sin of lust.

At least 1 pope was married (children unknown) prior to his elevation to the papacy: St Peter {1st}

At least one Apostle was married with children and grand children. Eusebius’ “Church History” ii. 23;iii,20, tells of Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian who visited Rome about AD 180, and who collected reminiscences about the apostles. It is to Hegesippus that we owe the account of how two grandsons of Jude were summoned before the emperor Domitian and questioned about the Kingdom of Christ.

St Philip, the Evangelist, had four gifted daughters. (Acts 21:8,9.)

At least 6 popes were laymen prior to their elevation to the papacy: St Peter, St Fabian {20th P.}, Leo VIII {133}, Benedict VIII {144th}, John XIX {145th} and Benedict IX {146th}.

At least 4 popes were married with children prior to their elevation: St Felix III {48th}, St Hormisdas {52nd}, Adrian II {107th} and Clement IV {181st}.

At least 1 pope had a mistress/mistresses (unknown illegitimate children), prior to his elevation to the papacy: Boniface VIII{191st}.

At least 8 popes had a mistress/mistresses, and by them illegitimate children, prior to their elevation to the papacy: John XXII {194th}, Pius II {208th}, Innocent VIII {211th}, Alexander VI {212th}, Julius II {214th}, Paul III {218th}, Pius IV {222nd}, and Gregory XIII {224th}.

At least 2 popes had a mistress/mistresses, and by them illegitimate children, AFTER elevation to the papacy: Sergius III {121st} and Alexander VI {212th}.

At least 2 popes were born illegitimate: John XII {132nd} and Clement VII {217th}.

At least 1 pope was the son of a sub-Deacon: St Deusdedit {68th}.

At least 12 popes were the sons of a priest or bishop: St Damasus I {37th}, St Boniface I {42nd}, St Felix III {48th}, St Gelasius I {49th}, Anastasius II {50th}, St Agaptus I {57th}, Theodore I {73rd}, Marinis I {109th}, Boniface VI {113th}, Stephen VI (VII) {114th}, John XV {138th} and Adrian IV {167th} (Nicholas Breakespeare, the first English pope, who gave Ireland to the English King.)

At least 3 popes were the fathers of a future pope: Anastasius I {39th}, St Hormisdas {52nd} and Sergius III {121st}.

At least 3 popes were the sons of or descendants of a pope: St Silverius {58th}, St Gregory I (the Great) {64th}, and John XI {127th}.


#4

If I’m not mistake, all (or almost all) but John were married.


#5

As with Genesis315, I’m not entirely sure of the point of this thread. Clarify please?


#6

I think the point is to a roundabout way to engage in a discussion of the married priesthood.

It is important to remember that within the Churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff (22 total), most allow married men to be elevated to diaconal and presbyterial orders. Married men are not permitted to serve as bishops except in truly exceptional cases (more about this in a moment).

The only rules are that a) this practice is not currently permitted in the west because of the difficulties it might cause and b) one has to be married before his ordination to the diaconate.

Within the Latin Church there are also married priests functioning in the United States… about 80 as I recall. Most are converts from the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches. This has caused some resentment among other Latin priests, but in general they have been well recieved.

Thus, Rome has not outlawed married men from becoming clergy, but it has been severely limited - especially in the West.

Other western ecclesial jurisdictions, including mine, permit married clergy. Though I am currently under a vow of celibacy, my vow is that I will remain celibate until I am given a dispensation by my bishop to marry. I then get one chance, and only one. If my wife dies six hours after the wedding, that’s it. If she decides she doesn’t like being a priests wife six years down the line, that’s it. No second, third, fourth marriages (as some Episcopal priests have become infamous for).

The most significant example of a Latin married catholic bishop (yes, BISHOP) in the modern era has a unique tie to me. Bishop Salamo Ferraz of Brazil was a part of the National Catholic and Apostolic Church of Brazil (I think I have that name right) who had been consecrated by a former Roman Catholic bishop, Carlos Duarte Costa, in the early 1950’s. In 1959, he elected to seek full communion with the Pope and was recieved as a bishop with his wife in tow. She even accompanied him to the Second Vatican Council (well, to Rome, not exactly into the sessions!). He was given a titular see and died as a Latin Rite married bishop. He is the only accepted example of a married Latin Rite bishop I know of in the past 100 or so years. My connection is that he consecrated the Archbishop who consecrated the Bishop who ordained me to the priesthood, and he also consecrated the Bishop who was a consecrator of my current bishop.

Rob+


#7

[quote=big_guy144]Wasn’t Peter married? The Bible says he was.

Matthew 8:14 says, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”
[/quote]

Yes.


#8

Yes he was married, but he might have been a widower by the time he left his nets to follow Jesus.

The Bible refers to Peter’s mother-in-law, but his wife is not anywhere in the account of her mother’s healing. In fact, Peter’s mother-in-law proceeds to wait them right after she was healed. Now if my mom had just been ill, healed or not, I’d be the one waiting on Jesus and his disciples.

Some protestants point out the reference to Peter being married as “proof” that he wasn’t Pope. It proves no such thing, but sometimes catches ignorant Catholics by surprise to see the Bible reference to his mother-in-law… Married or widowed, Peter was Pope, and our current Pope is Peter’s successor.


#9

Fr RobSST wrote:

Bishop Salamo Ferraz of Brazil was a part of the National Catholic and Apostolic Church of Brazil (I think I have that name right) who had been consecrated by a former Roman Catholic bishop, Carlos Duarte Costa, in the early 1950’s.

Just to set the record straight - you are a Duate-Costa priest, that is, not in communion with Rome?

The Duate-Costa line is on display at Terry Boyle’s website
HERE

A certain Australian, Rob Gow, a civil Marriage Celebrant, allegedly obtained ordination and consecration through the USA Duate-Costa group - probably 15 years ago (I would have to check my records - he gave me copies of his certificates!), but is still not listed on Terry’s site. I wonder why not. In any event, he is pretty much retired now, living in the country raising goats.


#10

[quote=Sean O L]Fr RobSST wrote:

Just to set the record straight - you are a Duate-Costa priest, that is, not in communion with Rome?
[/quote]

His line of succession was one of the lines my ordaining bishop had, in addition to others. I don’t share all of his views, but that is one of the sources of my orders, yes.

Which means that, indeed, I am not in communion with the Roman Pontiff. (Nor have I ever claimed to be :wink: )

The Duate-Costa line is on display at Terry Boyle’s website
HERE

The D-C line has actually spread a bit farther than that.

A certain Australian, Rob Gow, a civil Marriage Celebrant, allegedly obtained ordination and consecration through the USA Duate-Costa group - probably 15 years ago (I would have to check my records - he gave me copies of his certificates!), but is still not listed on Terry’s site. I wonder why not. In any event, he is pretty much retired now, living in the country raising goats.

There are several groups that have the Duarte-Costa line in the United States either directly or indirectly. I don’t know about him. I do know that some of us outside of Rome don’t go running around posting all our lines of succession on the Internet. I have been to some sites where every single line of every single consecrator is listed in very PAINFUL detail.

My bishop has a copy of ours, and has a copy of my ordaining bishop’s credentials. When it is necessary for any reason to display them, I let him handle that.

I’ll drop this particular subject here, mainly because it doesn’t directly relate to the thread. If you want to start a thread on this somewhere else, that’s fine. I’ll be happy to participate.

Rob+


#11

FrRonSST wrote:

I’ll drop this particular subject here,

I don’t blame you for that Rob. I have had a look at your Society of St Timothy website, and the Saint Alban’s webpage and the Yahoo Groups liturgy-1 site.

I am painfully aware of Peter Anson’s “Bishops at Large” and the subsequent explosion of “more of the same.”

I can only hope and pray for a swift return to Rome.

God bless,


#12

Father

I understand that you and the priests practice the Traditional Latin Mass and maintain most of the traditions of the church before Vatican II-Is that correct?

[quote=FrRobSST]I think the point is to a roundabout way to engage in a discussion of the married priesthood.

It is important to remember that within the Churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff (22 total), most allow married men to be elevated to diaconal and presbyterial orders. Married men are not permitted to serve as bishops except in truly exceptional cases (more about this in a moment).

The only rules are that a) this practice is not currently permitted in the west because of the difficulties it might cause and b) one has to be married before his ordination to the diaconate.

Within the Latin Church there are also married priests functioning in the United States… about 80 as I recall. Most are converts from the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches. This has caused some resentment among other Latin priests, but in general they have been well recieved.

Thus, Rome has not outlawed married men from becoming clergy, but it has been severely limited - especially in the West.

Other western ecclesial jurisdictions, including mine, permit married clergy. Though I am currently under a vow of celibacy, my vow is that I will remain celibate until I am given a dispensation by my bishop to marry. I then get one chance, and only one. If my wife dies six hours after the wedding, that’s it. If she decides she doesn’t like being a priests wife six years down the line, that’s it. No second, third, fourth marriages (as some Episcopal priests have become infamous for).

The most significant example of a Latin married catholic bishop (yes, BISHOP) in the modern era has a unique tie to me. Bishop Salamo Ferraz of Brazil was a part of the National Catholic and Apostolic Church of Brazil (I think I have that name right) who had been consecrated by a former Roman Catholic bishop, Carlos Duarte Costa, in the early 1950’s. In 1959, he elected to seek full communion with the Pope and was recieved as a bishop with his wife in tow. She even accompanied him to the Second Vatican Council (well, to Rome, not exactly into the sessions!). He was given a titular see and died as a Latin Rite married bishop. He is the only accepted example of a married Latin Rite bishop I know of in the past 100 or so years. My connection is that he consecrated the Archbishop who consecrated the Bishop who ordained me to the priesthood, and he also consecrated the Bishop who was a consecrator of my current bishop.

Rob+
[/quote]


#13

[quote=BulldogCath]Father

I understand that you and the priests practice the Traditional Latin Mass and maintain most of the traditions of the church before Vatican II-Is that correct?
[/quote]

No. I am a bi-ritual priest, with my principal practice being in the Timothean Rite of our Synod, with a background in the Sarum Rite which I occassionaly celebrate as well. I am also currently studying the Maronite Rite.

Our Liturgical Year is a bit different as well. We start with Trinity Sunday on the Sunday that Roman rite Catholics would be celebrating Christ the King, followed by Advent, Christmastide (ending with Transfiguration on the Sunday before Ash Wednesday), then Lent, Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost Week. We then have our long green season called Gracetide, the first week being a celebration of the Word of God, the second Sunday being a celebration of the Eucharist (same Sunday as Corpus Christi in the Roman Rite) and then four week before Trinity Sunday we start Kingdomtide in which we have sundays dealing with death, judgement, all saints, and Christ the King.

Other than that, all seven sacraments, etc.

Rob+


#14

God bless you Father and I admire your dedication. Many of us men here wish we had been able to be ordained and devote our life to Christ. Many here are willing to throw names around like schismatic and the rest, but anyone, whether a Novus Ordo priest, Traditional, or any order has my admiration.

God bless

[quote=FrRobSST]No. I am a bi-ritual priest, with my principal practice being in the Timothean Rite of our Synod, with a background in the Sarum Rite which I occassionaly celebrate as well. I am also currently studying the Maronite Rite.

Our Liturgical Year is a bit different as well. We start with Trinity Sunday on the Sunday that Roman rite Catholics would be celebrating Christ the King, followed by Advent, Christmastide (ending with Transfiguration on the Sunday before Ash Wednesday), then Lent, Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost Week. We then have our long green season called Gracetide, the first week being a celebration of the Word of God, the second Sunday being a celebration of the Eucharist (same Sunday as Corpus Christi in the Roman Rite) and then four week before Trinity Sunday we start Kingdomtide in which we have sundays dealing with death, judgement, all saints, and Christ the King.

Other than that, all seven sacraments, etc.

Rob+
[/quote]


#15

BullDogCath wrote:

God bless you Father and I admire your dedication. Many of us men here wish we had been able to be ordained and devote our life to Christ. Many here are willing to throw names around like schismatic and the rest, but anyone, whether a Novus Ordo priest, Traditional, or any order has my admiration.

Wake up! Rob does not claim to have ever been a Catholic priest. He does not claim to ever having been a Catholic (in the sense understood by Catholics in union with Rome).

His “pedigree” appears to be the usual mixture of protestant/OldCatholic/schismatic and excommunicated. The tenuous Duarte-Costa line is from a Brazilian bishop who left the Church (was excommunicated) and founded an entirely new Church in Brazil. Rob does not even appear to know much of the history of the ensuing schismatic groups which have evolved from Duarte Costa.

However, his main claim appears to be from the Episcopalians (Church of Endland (whose orders were never recognized by Rome. His group appear to have been associated with the “Primitive Episcopal Church”; but his group “withdrew from” that group on 6 October 2002 (that is initiated a schism). Subsequently, he/they obtained the services of a Bishop of the Old Catholic Orthodox Church (what a mish-mash!!!) to serve their needs.

From what has been disclosed prior to this post - you discerned that he said the “Tridentine” Rite! Gasp! No wonder people continue to be under the spell of the SSPX.


#16

[quote=Sean O L]BullDogCath wrote:

Wake up! Rob does not claim to have ever been a Catholic priest. He does not claim to ever having been a Catholic (in the sense understood by Catholics in union with Rome).

His “pedigree” appears to be the usual mixture of protestant/OldCatholic/schismatic and excommunicated. The tenuous Duarte-Costa line is from a Brazilian bishop who left the Church (was excommunicated) and founded an entirely new Church in Brazil. Rob does not even appear to know much of the history of the ensuing schismatic groups which have evolved from Duarte Costa.

However, his main claim appears to be from the Episcopalians (Church of Endland (whose orders were never recognized by Rome. His group appear to have been associated with the “Primitive Episcopal Church”; but his group “withdrew from” that group on 6 October 2002 (that is initiated a schism). Subsequently, he/they obtained the services of a Bishop of the Old Catholic Orthodox Church (what a mish-mash!!!) to serve their needs.

From what has been disclosed prior to this post - you discerned that he said the “Tridentine” Rite! Gasp! No wonder people continue to be under the spell of the SSPX.
[/quote]

Sean, I believe you are wasting your time with BullDogCath. Though from what I can tell you are pretty much dead on with you assertion. However I have come to the conclusion he will never agree with us unless we agree with him. Regardless if our arguments are more logical, or have ample Magisterium support.

If he is right and we are wrong, what Apostolic authority besides himself can he appeal to, to excommunicate us Rad Trad (SSPX, SSPV etc) opponents? But then again I guess the entire post Vatican II Novus Ordo establishment had excommunicated itself either at Vatican II, or with the promulgation of Paul VI’s New Mass, oh well I forgot. But it begs the valid question of who or where is the current TLM(Tridentine Latin Mass) Pope???:confused:


#17

[quote=Catholic29]But it begs the valid question of who or where is the current TLM(Tridentine Latin Mass) Pope???:confused:
[/quote]

I think he died…
news.com.au/story/0,10117,12634087-1702,00.html


#18

Wasn’t Peter married? The Bible says he was.

Matthew 8:14 says, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”

Thought ya had somethin there Big_Guy?

And then POOF it was gone


#19

[quote=Catholic29]Sean, I believe you are wasting your time with BullDogCath. Though from what I can tell you are pretty much dead on with you assertion. However I have come to the conclusion he will never agree with us unless we agree with him. Regardless if our arguments are more logical, or have ample Magisterium support.

If he is right and we are wrong, what Apostolic authority besides himself can he appeal to, to excommunicate us Rad Trad (SSPX, SSPV etc) opponents? But then again I guess the entire post Vatican II Novus Ordo establishment had excommunicated itself either at Vatican II, or with the promulgation of Paul VI’s New Mass, oh well I forgot. But it begs the valid question of who or where is the current TLM(Tridentine Latin Mass) Pope???:confused:
[/quote]

Quick hijack: Actually, there’s a couple claiming to be. One guy, “Pope Michael I” was elected by his parents (in Kansas City I believe). The other one I know of, “Pope Pius XIII” was elected in Montana and it is there that he “reigns.”:whacky: You can look them up on the internet. I hate to say it, but it’s kind if funny. Just beware of their sedevacanist venom.


#20

Catholic

With due respect-I dont feel it is right, and the Father is not a Trad-to be bashing any priest, a Novus Ordo, a Trad, a SSPX, SSPV whatever. They are devoting thier life to God, going "home
to an apartment or rectory then flying off (at least the Trads do because there is so much demand for the Traditional Mass and not enought priests) to some other state or whatever while you go home, pop open a soda and watch TV with your wife or husband (do not know your gender). We here have so much “reverence” for all of these other false faiths-but bash our Own Catholics because the Pope got the guts up in 1988 to actually stand his ground against Lefebvre while all other abuses are running rampant. Not deflecting anything here, but I give each priest the respect he deserves, having started to go down that path myself.

God bless

[quote=Catholic29]Sean, I believe you are wasting your time with BullDogCath. Though from what I can tell you are pretty much dead on with you assertion. However I have come to the conclusion he will never agree with us unless we agree with him. Regardless if our arguments are more logical, or have ample Magisterium support.

If he is right and we are wrong, what Apostolic authority besides himself can he appeal to, to excommunicate us Rad Trad (SSPX, SSPV etc) opponents? But then again I guess the entire post Vatican II Novus Ordo establishment had excommunicated itself either at Vatican II, or with the promulgation of Paul VI’s New Mass, oh well I forgot. But it begs the valid question of who or where is the current TLM(Tridentine Latin Mass) Pope???:confused:
[/quote]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.