Catholic Answers vs. Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on Peter's Marriage

Here's an interesting compare and contrast between Catholic Answers and Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on whether or not Peter was married. The biblical text which fuels this comparison is 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul says that the Apostles have particular "rights," and one such right is taking a wife along when ministering... just as the Apostle Peter did! Here is the passage from the NAS:

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?

Out of curiosity, I consulted the North American magisterium, Catholic Answers, to find out what this verse really means (read: sarcasm). What intrigued me about their answer was that they included a quote from Clement of Alexandria to substantiate their answer. Here's what Catholic Answers stated, 

...[T]he apostles [were] 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. 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). In short, I think Peter was a widower at the time his mother-in-law was healed. 

With as much dripping sarcasm as I can muster through the printed word: The Fathers! The Fathers! The Fathers! So... I then went off to see what Clement of Alexandria said in context, and well... he didn't say what Catholic Answers asserts. In fact, he says the opposite, and none other than Eusebius backs Clement up on it! Here's the text from Clement (bolding mine):

Clement of Alexandria:

52. How then? Did not the righteous in ancient times partake of what God made with thanksgiving? Some begat children and lived chastely in the married state. To Elijah the ravens brought bread and meat for food.  And Samuel the prophet brought as food for Saul the remnant of the thigh, of which he had already eaten. But whereas they say that they are superior to them in behaviour and conduct, they cannot even be compared with them in their deeds. "He who does not eat," then, "let him not despise him who eats; and he who eats let him not judge him who does not eat; for God has accepted him." Moreover, the Lord says of himself: "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and a sinner." Or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.

53. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?"  But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy. Furthermore, the selfsame man cried aloud that "the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink," not indeed in abstinence from wine and meat, "but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."  Which of them goes about like Elijah clad in a sheepskin and a leather girdle? Which of them goes about like Isaiah, naked except for a piece of sacking and without shoes? Or clothed merely in a linen loincloth like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John's gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets also lived in this manner and were thankful to the Creator.

Granted, there is some ambiguity because the English word for wife being used is, "consort." Nor do I know which Clement source Catholic Answers used.  Could it be that I'm simply misreading Clement? Could it be that I'm demonstrating "Protestant" bias? Nope. Check out what Eusebius wrote, reading the same context: 

Eusebius: Chapter 30 The Apostles That Were Married

1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they, says he, reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them." This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.

Conclusion
Frankly, I appreciate the writings of the church fathers, but I do not hold them to be that which is the final voice that determines what a Biblical passage means. On the other hand, Rome's defenders do claim the church fathers are of key importance to establish the validity of Roman Catholicism. This text from Clement and its use by Catholic Answers demonstrates a severe disconnect. When they cite something... look it up!  

Calvinist Exorcism?

Here's the way Rome's defenders used to do apologetics. When they confronted Calvinism, they didn't argue, they did exorcisms. To prove demon possession, they would put a copy of Calvin's Institutes on the possessed and watch the person caress the book. Then, they would use the powers of Ignatius Loyola and the Virgin Mary to battle the demon! Once they beat the demon, the now un-possessed person would return back to the Roman Catholic Church!

The following tale comes from The Life of St. Ignatius Loyola: Founder of the Jesuits, vol. 2.

At Ostrog in Poland, A.D. 1627, a noble lady belonging to the sect of Calvin was delivered from satanic possession to the great glory of the Catholic faith. The evidence of her possession was unmistakable; for though she knew no other than her native tongue, she replied to questions in any language she was addressed by. The heretics had not courage to attempt her cure, and were constrained by necessity to put her into our hands, and accordingly made their petition to the rector of our college. He first demanded whether they were entirely convinced that she was a demoniac: they answered, yes. The man who was most urgent in his entreaties was a most obstinate heretic, and used to say that he would sooner be a dog or a pig than a Papist, and to him the rector said, "Do you not consider our ceremonies as superstitious, and our exorcisms as vanities? Why then do you come to us? is it faith or necessity which brings you? Send for your own ministers, and your schismatical priests, and see what power they have over the devil, and then come to us; for it is only fair that the trial should be considered as a proof of the reality of the two religions." The heretics excused themselves, saying that their ministers did not possess power to expel devils, and that if we succeeded they should judge quite differently of the Roman faith.

After this a visit was made to the woman to see if she were really possessed, and of this they were soon assured; for hardly had the rector sprinkled her with holy water, and put a relic of St. Ignatius upon her by stealth, than she began to writhe and twist about her body, saying that a bone of St. Ignatius tormented her. As the rector was more anxious to heal the souls of the heretics than the body of the woman, he bid them bring the book of Calvin's Institutions, or some other book containing their own dogmas, and give it to the woman. This was accordingly done, and the devil began to kiss and caress it with great marks of joy. The rector then took it and hid between the leaves a picture of St. Ignatius, and presented it to her again. The devil then drew back screaming with anger, and would not even touch it. Being compelled to acknowledge what it was he feared, he answered, "The picture of St. Ignatius which you have placed there." The heretics were greatly confounded at this, and one of them said in anger, "You papists have a good understanding with the devil, and so you can do what you will with him." One of the fathers then said, "Since this evidence does not content you, let us try this. I will pray to God that if yours is the true faith, the devil may pass into my body and torment me, but if the Catholic faith be true, that he may enter into you for the space of one hour only. Will this satisfy you?" Not one of them would consent, and all were silent. Then they earnestly begged the rector, that if he could assist the poor woman he would do so. This he promised and then went away. 

Then the rector ordered a three days' fast in the college, and other penances, and offered alms and many masses. Then one of our brethren went to visit the possessed, and on seeing him she flew into a passion, but if a heretic presented himself she called him her dear friend. The following facts ensued upon his being conjured to speak. First, the devil confessed that the Jesuits at Ostrog were his most hateful enemies, and that he endeavoured by every means in his power to render them odious in the city, and to counterwork the good they did. Secondly, that he had once tried to burn down the college, but that he had not been able to conceal the fire long enough to insure his success. Thirdly, that he tried to enter the rooms of the fathers to do them some evil; but that he was repulsed by Mary and Ignatius. In proof of this he described to one of the fathers all the articles in his room and their arrangement, and he added that a certain candle he had prepared ready for the feast of Candlemas would not be broken because it was put near the crucifix. As mass was being said in our church for the liberation of the woman, the devil from time to time uttered horrible cries and said, "Now they are raising the Most High!" 

The solemn exorcism was fixed for the feast of the Purification. The heretics begged that it might take place privately in the house, but the faith was not to be defrauded of so signal a testimony to its power over the devil, and our church was the place fixed upon. The woman was brought into the church in the presence of a vast multitude, she was tightly bound, and dragged by men before our Lady's and St. Ignatius's altar, and sent forth horrible and terrifying cries. Before commencing the rector addressed the people, and exhorted them to repentance, and they wept and showed great emotion. The devil was asked who he was, and how he had entered there after great resistance. He said that he was Ruteno, and that an old sorceress, named Rutena, had introduced him into that body by means of a thread with which a garland of flowers was bound, and that she had heedlessly put it on her head, as is the custom in that country. He was then conjured to say who had most power to cast him out after God. After writhing about, gnashing his teeth in spite, and shrieking out, he answered, Mary and Ignatius. Exorcisms were continued for two hours before the image of the saint, with invocation to the Blessed Virgin. Then the devil snatched the woman out of the hands of those who held her, and throwing her on the earth, as if dead, he left her. In a little time she came to herself, and being assisted to rise, she was led before the blessed Sacrament, weeping herself, and amidst the tears of all, and there she solemnly abjured her errors and professed the Catholic Faith.

Luther: "Christ is not found in church doctrine, but in your love for each other"

 

Social media has been steadily producing Martin Luther memes, and not all of them are accurate. The meme above certainly sounds like something Luther said. In the exact form in the picture above, I doubt theses sentences were either exactly written by Luther or presented by Luther in this order.

Perhaps all the elements can be located somewhere in Luther's vast written corpus.  For instance, my cursory search determined that the later half of the last line can be found in the Ninety-Five Theses: "Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money."  Other than that, I'm not going to invest the time to discover who cobbled these ideas together from Luther's writings (the "sack of potatoes" line though does intrigue me). 

So where does this quote come from? 

The first line was uttered by a fictional representation of Martin Luther from the 2003 movie. Much thanks to the website, script-o-rama for the transcription of the following lines: "He isn't found in the bones of saints... but here, in your love for each other, in your love for one another... in His sacraments, and in God's holy word."

The second line appears to have originated from a documentary from Rick Steves Europe. This appears to be where the entirety of both lines comes from. See particularly, this link to a section of the video, including a transcript.  This video transcript also featuring Rick Steves includes some of the quote.