Which 12 Apostles were married?

Which 12 Apostles were married?

Different Church Fathers say different things, but generally the only know believed to be a virgin was St John. St Peter was married (and had a daughter some say), and so were St Andrew, St Bartholomew and St Matthew according to the 4th Century Father Epiphanius. According to St Papias in the late 1st century the Apostle Philip was married too and had daughters (as well as a deacon by the same name in the NT) Judas the betrayer my have been married, since Psalm 108 was applied to him and it speaks of a man orphaning his kids and widowing his wife. Lastly. St Jude the Apostl, was married, that is assuming he is the same Jude that is one of the “brethren of the Lord,” since Hegesippus mentions Jude as having descendants.

St John the Apostle seems to be universally recognized as a lifelong virgin, and 2 sources said so was his brother St James. According to Epiphanius the other Apostle named St James was also a life long virgin.

We have no tradition that says St Thomas, St Mattias, St Simon the Zealot had wives, some of the Fathers like Tertullian assumed they were therefore eunuchs or continent.

St Paul before his conversion was certainly married, though he is an apostle in more of a general sense.

This book is where i got some of my sources: "Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy"
By Christian Cochini books.google.com/books?id=Bc2ovrZ_BZkC&pg=PA69&dq=celibate+john+virgin&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false

What do you base this on? Just curious. There are wildly varying views on this. BTW Papias is not a saint, right?

1.) Clement of Alexandria-- believes Paul was married, and even after his conversion he kept his wife, though possibly as sister.

2.) St. Ignatius of Antioch mentions all of the Apostles were married then mentions Paul and Peter specifically were married Apostles.

3.) Many other Church fathers, such as Tertullian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine say that Paul was NOT married. Jerome holds firm to the belief that John was celibate.

Papias is a saint.

newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm

He was a great oral historian who went around collecting whatever people remembered hearing as eyewitnesses from:

A) Jesus Himself

B) One of the Apostles.

He collected five volumes of these eyewitness accounts, but all we have left are fragments. He apparently even collected stuff from one of Philip’s prophetic daughters, which is very very cool.

However, nobody ever claimed that the stuff he collected was inspired in the same way as the Gospel. It was just side reading, and his interpretations of what they said were sometimes weird; which is probably why the book eventually disappeared. It’s sad. But the fragments are pretty easy to find on the Internet.

I like “Be good bankers” and the stuff about the new heavens and the new earth. I’d love it if we got a whole copy of Papias out of a library somewhere, or out of the Egyptian sands. But it’s just interesting, not essential.

I find it difficult to reconcilethat with 1 Corinthans 7:1-8

1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5* Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7* I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

No it’s not. All we know from 1 Cor is that Paul was not married at that time. He may or may not have been married previously (and e.g. widowed or divorced). So it’s easy to reconcile.

There’s not basis, on the other hand, to assume he was certainly married (though of course it’s likely that most Jews did marry).

From the New Testament all we know is that Peter was married.

I say St Paul was married before his conversion because 1 Cor 7 is about someone that lost a spouse and is now called to celibacy, and because the Pharisees generally required men to be married, in addition some of the Fathers say Paul was married.

That’s what I was thinking too, that St. Paul and most of the 12 Apostles were married. I am sure being single as a result of illness or some other premature death was rather common 2000 years ago.

According to Jewish Tradition, there have been rabbis that were celibates for their studies.
Also in Jewish tradition some of Prophets were celibates like Elijah, Elisha, and maybe Jeremiah. Moses is said to have abstained from his wife after the ordination of the 70 elders. Celibacy was not always rejected in Judaism as it largely is today

For more see cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

It is speculation how many, if any of the Apostles were married apart from Peter. Despite your mistaken interpretation about Paul, we only know for sure that Peter was married.

Also with regard to Peter we don’t even know if he was still married or a widower when Jesus called him because Scripture only mentions his mother in law but does not say anything about his wife or children.

Since bishops were sucessors to the apostles and in those times it was not forbidden for a preson to be a bishop and be married can anyone answer this–I’ve always wondered what the answer is–who was the last married bishop in the history of the Catholic Church?

Since bishops were sucessors to the apostles and in those times it was not forbidden for a preson to be a bishop and be married can anyone answer this–I’ve always wondered what the answer is–who was the last married bishop in the history of the Catholic Church?

I’m having trouble finding a source I read before, I think it was on google books, but i remember they mentioned a bishop being married in around the 12 or 13th century. If a married man was ordained to bishop, he had to sent his wife to the convent, this is what Orthodox bishop do to this day, or the wife sometimes had the option to become a deaconess when available.

Seems to me that if many of the apostles and bishops were married (which seems natural to me) why wouldn’t the church now accept married priests? Seems to me that it would cut down on all the pedophilia that exists. How much money in lawsuits does the church have to lose before they see that truth?

Most paedophiles in the world are non-celibate.

A priest has to be fully committed to Christ and his flock, if he has a wife and a bunch of children it would cause problems.

I doubt John was married, being younger and living with Mary after Jesus’ death.

Kidkebec #16
Seems to me that if many of the apostles and bishops were married (which seems natural to me) why wouldn’t the church now accept married priests?

It is certainly doubtful, and most probably untrue, that “many of the apostles were married.”
From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – priestly celibacy is an Apostolic norm.

Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

Seems to me that it would cut down on all the pedophilia that exists. How much money in lawsuits does the church have to lose before they see that truth?

It is a fallacy that marriage “would cut down on all the pedophilia that exists.” Other denominations with married clergy, and the wide world, suffer similarly from that scourge.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – priestly celibacy is an Apostolic norm. It is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – priestly celibacy is an Apostolic norm. It is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

This is ridiculous. Where do you get this information? It is overwhelmingly clear from scripture and the fathers that most of the apostles were married. St. Paul talks about not taking with him a believing wife as the other apostles do, mentioning Peter by name. St. Ignatius, who knew the apostles, says the apostles were married, except St. John. Clement of Alexandria tells of Peter accompanying his wife as she went to her martyrdom. Married priests and bishops were the norm from apostolic times and no one disputes this. The Eastern rite churches preserve the tradition of married priests. And as a final example, even Latin rite Catholics had a legitimate married pope who lived, legitimately with his family in the Vatican as late as the ninth century. Can we try to inform ourselves before we believe blindly whatever someone tells us? I consider myself conservative and orthodox, but many who glory in these labels enjoy obfuscation for the sake of triumphalism.

This is ridiculous. Where do you get this information? It is overwhelmingly clear from scripture and the fathers that most of the apostles were married.

Real Catholics know that among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – priestly celibacy is an Apostolic norm, for from the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

There is no question that Priestly continence was the norm from the beginning and there were no legitimate exceptions.

Here is more testimony to the truth:

Fr. George William Rutler, in an article entitled *A Consistent theology of clerical celibacy *(Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Feb. 1989), notes that “Virginity and celibacy were not synonymous in the original ecclesiastical institution of celibacy. Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination. The new archaeology shows that this was the case for all the Eastern Churches in the earliest centuries, and in a mitigated form later. In the Latin Church this was the clear rule throughout the first millennium, culminating in the laws of the Gregorian reform, especially as found in the First Lateran Council of 1123, and the Second Lateran Council of 1139…The discipline of the Second Lateran Council explicitly forbidding marriage after ordination was not an innovation in the observance of continence. Its prohibition of clerical marriage was only a regulation ensuring that the apostolic norm of abstinence would be better observed.”

Priestly Celibacy and Its Roots in Christ … Interview with Fr McGovern
National Catholic REGISTER, May 19-25, 2002

“Recent scholarship on the history of celibacy in both the Easter and Western Church has shown that there is a considerable body of evidence in favour of the argument that priestly celibacy is of apostolic origin, based on Christ’s invitation to the Twelve to leave all things and follow him (cf. Mt 19:29). [5] Indeed, Saint John Paul II points out in his 1979 Holy Thursday Letter to Priests that celibacy is so closely linked to the language of the Gospel that it refers back to the teaching of Christ and to apostolic tradition.”

[quote=jackpuffin]This is ridiculous. Where do you get this information? It is overwhelmingly clear from scripture and the fathers that most of the apostles were married.
[/quote]

Real Catholics know that among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – priestly celibacy is an Apostolic norm, for from the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

There is no question that Priestly continence was the norm from the beginning and there were no legitimate exceptions.

Here is more testimony to the truth:

Fr. George William Rutler, in an article entitled *A Consistent theology of clerical celibacy *(Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Feb. 1989), notes that “Virginity and celibacy were not synonymous in the original ecclesiastical institution of celibacy. Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination. The new archaeology shows that this was the case for all the Eastern Churches in the earliest centuries, and in a mitigated form later. In the Latin Church this was the clear rule throughout the first millennium, culminating in the laws of the Gregorian reform, especially as found in the First Lateran Council of 1123, and the Second Lateran Council of 1139…The discipline of the Second Lateran Council explicitly forbidding marriage after ordination was not an innovation in the observance of continence. Its prohibition of clerical marriage was only a regulation ensuring that the apostolic norm of abstinence would be better observed.”

Priestly Celibacy and Its Roots in Christ … Interview with Fr McGovern
National Catholic REGISTER, May 19-25, 2002

“Recent scholarship on the history of celibacy in both the Easter and Western Church has shown that there is a considerable body of evidence in favour of the argument that priestly celibacy is of apostolic origin, based on Christ’s invitation to the Twelve to leave all things and follow him (cf. Mt 19:29). [5] Indeed, Saint John Paul II points out in his 1979 Holy Thursday Letter to Priests that celibacy is so closely linked to the language of the Gospel that it refers back to the teaching of Christ and to apostolic tradition.”

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.