Posted on 09/03/2007 4:38:35 PM PDT by NYer
We only know definitively from Scripture that at one time St. Peter was married, his wife is never mentioned, and there is no mention of his having any children, so you are making unfounded assumptions. Also, from the discourse between Christ and Peter, as detailed in Mark 10, Luke 18 and Matthew 19, Peter, as well as the other Apostles gave up everything, including a wife if they were married and again, we only know definitvely that Peter was at one time married, to follow the Lord.
Were you a competent student of history, rather than an ill-informed emoter, you'd be familiar with St. Clement of Alexandria's "The Stromata" in which he writes of St. Peter in Book VII Chapter XI:
'They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.
Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not," and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.'
Oh please...There is no mention of Mary being the queen of heaven or her supposed immaculate conception...
Also, from the discourse between Christ and Peter, as detailed in Mark 10, Luke 18 and Matthew 19, Peter, as well as the other Apostles gave up everything, including a wife if they were married
Mar 10:28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
Peter says he left ALL...But obviously Peter wasn't telling the truth since Jesus replied,
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
So how could you miss that???
And then you are saying Peter left his house, wife and kids but he kept his mother-in-law...
C'mon, you can do better than that...
Were you a competent student of history, rather than an ill-informed emoter, you'd be familiar with St. Clement of Alexandria's "The Stromata" in which he writes of St. Peter in Book VII Chapter XI:
And were you a competent student of God's word instead of what ever you are, we wouldn't be having this conversation
'They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.
Peter was with Jesus for three and a half years...You said Peter left his wife...But then she died...So which is it??? Did she die or did he dump her???
In either case, she couldn have known much about the Lord...
Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not," and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.'
So what unbiblical apostle says this??? This came from your church history??? As we all know, your church history has enough corruption that I wouldn't trust any of it...
So you made a lot of noise but proved nothing...You didn't even lend any credibility to you assertation...
Peter, your first pope was married according to scripture...
A person seeking counsel does not necessarily commit sin...If a man's wife left him, or a family's child is involved with drugs, etc...
You can attempt to defend all you want, but a single man can not counsel people effectively in these situations...
And yes, a former drug user turned pastor would be a far better counsel that one who had no experience with that type of sin...
Well of course it doesn't hold water with you...You would defend a Catholic priest if he was a chimpanzee trying to recite the works of Shakespeare...
Good thing He didn't require that of Peter and other disciples (since they were already married when He chose them).
Explicitly, no. Implicitly, yes. The woman described in Apocalypse was manifested in the image on the tilma of Juan Diego, something which you obviously missed. Scripture is full of different teaching techniques. Your post is indicative of your inability to discern Scripture, which St. Peter warned of in the third chapter of his second epistle, as well as your lack of study or even apparent knowledge of typology. You seem to think, mistakenly, that Scripture is all inclusive even though Scripture itself, John 21, tells us that it isn't. By the way, what defects were there in the ark which held the written word in Exodus 25?
So how could you miss that???
I didn't miss anything. Comprehension is apparently your achilles' heel.
Mar (sic) 10:28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
The standard abbreviation for Mark is Mk, but that notwithstanding, you selectively omitted verses 30 and 31.
"Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. But many that are first, shall be last: and the last, first." Mk 10:30-31.
And then you are saying Peter left his house, wife and kids but he kept his mother-in-law...
All we know from Scripture is that Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. We don't know if his wife was alive or if he had any children. Your injecting into Scripture that which isn't there, something you chastised me for earlier. So how about stopping the hypocrite act especially since you aren't smart enough to pull it off in an effective manner. You can't have it both ways. There is no indication that Peter "kept her" as you so ineloquently put it, in fact the Gospels tell us that once she was healed she arose and began to serve them. The lesson demonstrated for the Apostles in Christ's healing power is lost on you. This also indicates that you missed Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees for abandoning the care of their elders, known as the Corban rule, in Mark 7.
So you made a lot of noise but proved nothing...You didn't even lend any credibility to you assertation(sic)...
What I've proved, with your unwitting assistance, is that you are ignorant of both Scripture and the history of Christendom and you're not too bright to boot.
Peter, your first pope was married according to scripture...
Peter was the first Pope, whether you admit it or not and Catholics don't deny that he was married but Scripture, which you selectively read as if you were eating at a smorgasbord, indicates that all of the Apostles gave up everything to follow Christ.
The only disciple we know for certain was married, was Simon Peter.
1 Corinthians 9:5 “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Jesus’ statement accounts for why we don’t see spouses of the apostles mentioned in the Gospels and in Acts; the apostles and their wives were separated for the sake of the apostolic ministry. Some apostles later took their wives along to assist them, as we have seen from Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 9:5.
Selectively omitted it??? You already read that Jesus disqualified Peter for verse 31...
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
And There is no man who left everything includes Peter...It's there for ALL to read...You can't miss it...Why are you skipping it...Talk about perverting the word of God...
And if anyone was to 'forsake all',
Mar 10:30 But he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
And you obviously have no clue what verse 31 refers to...
But yes, I'm an old Country Boy...And I thank God that He revealed His word to us Old Country Boys...
Selectively omitted it??? You already read that Jesus disqualified Peter for verse 31...
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
And There is no man who left everything includes Peter...It's there for ALL to read...You can't miss it...Why are you skipping it...Talk about perverting the word of God...
And if anyone was to 'forsake all',
Mar 10:30 But he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
And you obviously have no clue what verse 31 refers to...
But yes, I'm an old Country Boy...And I thank God that He revealed His word to us Old Country Boys...
Some apostles later took their wives along to assist them, as we have seen from Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 9:5.
And then the apostles and their wives were put back together for the sake of the apostolic mininsty???
When Peter tells Jesus that he and the others have left their homes to follow him, Jesus says, "There is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life" (Luke 18:29–30).
I see how you guys do it...You leave out half the verse and pervert it to mean something else...
Then the rest of you believe the perversion...
Tired old anti-Catholic smear. Anyone who actually believes this wheeze knows nothing about what priests, or therapists and counselors for that matter, actually do.
There’s this thing called EDUCATION, for one thing. It means that people can know things that they haven’t experienced themselves. Ever hear of it?
There’s also intelligence, common sense, empathy, insight.
Moreover, Catholic priests do NOT do marriage counseling unless they are trained and certified to do so just like any other citizen.
No smear to it...It's a matter of reality...
There’s this thing called EDUCATION, for one thing. It means that people can know things that they haven’t experienced themselves. Ever hear of it?
Yep...I'm familiar with education...You get education to learn the language...Without the experience, your education is useless...That's why an education gets you an entry level job...
There’s also intelligence, common sense, empathy, insight.
Insight comes from experience...
Common sense is for people who are void of facts...Intelligence and empathy will get you nowhere when dealing with the problems of a family if you've never had a family...
I can show someone how to be a bad golfer...Been there, done that...(still there)...I can show someone how to play baseball or football...Been there done that...I can show someone how to rebuild the motor in their vehicle...Been there, done that...
I could NOT show a young girl how to make a dress...I could read about it and pass on what I read but I'd hate to see the results...
Face it...Single men are not qualified to counsel a family on family matters...Why you guys would even argue against a statement like that must be one of the mysteries of your religion...
Not by name, no. But clearly, they were married, and as we have also agreed, the apostles took their wives along with them on some of their travels.
Have you informed the authorities about your discovery that single people cannot be competent counselors for married people? It’s your responsibility to notify them that there are thousands of dangerously unqualified single people who have been mistakenly licensed as Marriage and Family Therapists! Have you started making those phone calls?
I didn’t think so. It’s only unmarried CATHOLIC PRIESTS who are incapable of counseling married people.
Your further remarks on the matter only reveal that you are an anti-Catholic bigot. You make preposterous statements that any professional therapist would laugh at. But you are blinded by anti-Catholic bigotry, and fail to see how preposterous your assertions are.
Why do you harbor such animosity to a religion that does nothing to interfere in your life?
A glib, facile cliche.
By that line of logic, a heterosexual would be in no position to counsel homosexuals regarding the homosexual lifestyle because he's never experienced it. Similarly, a woman would be in no position to counsel a man about anything and vice versa. Does she know what it's like to be a man?
The answer of course, is that there are certain Christian principles applicable to all human relationships and anyone with a Christian understanding of the human condition, it's fallen nature, love, and the working of God's grace is perfectly qualified to offer counsel. The difficulties and problems which come between a man and a woman or between parents and children are not peculiar to the married state. On the contrary, they are caused by the same sins and weaknesses which afflict all humanity and human relationships; selfishness, impatience, thoughtlessness and so on. Priests experience this on a daily basis in their work in the confessional and are, I would say, eminently qualified to offer counsel. You will find no better student of the human condition than a wise, holy priest. They are particularly savvy about the need for that one essential ingredient which is required in all marriages; forgiveness. Again, this comes from the confessional.
Furthermore, your statement leaves no room for the spiritual dimension. A man illuminated by the Holy Spirit will have insights into all facets of human existence. Read the letters of St. Paul. There was no area of human life that he didn't understand.
The final trump card against your argument of course, is that many priests do offer counsel and do it well. Every day. I personally know of couples who've been able to piece it all back together again with the help of a Catholic priest. It happens.
This is all common knowledge and yes, common sense. Something which you too eagerly abandon in your haste to trash the Church.
I wouldn't waste 20 seconds talking to a never-married counselor for a marriage problem, religious or not...
In fact, I wouldn't waste time with any counselor that was not a Christian...
Why do you harbor such animosity to a religion that does nothing to interfere in your life?
It's my job as a Christian to inform people that a religion can not save them from an eternal Hell...If I don't tell them, who's going to, you???
So we’re back to the Whore of Babylon stuff again, it seems.
Now I didn't say that...The Bible says that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.