The gross failure to acknowledge the fact that giants in the faith have produced definitive historical studies in Early Church Tradition which include 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) which have been accepted, lauded and quoted by other stalwarts who include Fr. George William Rutler, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Father Thomas McGovern of Opus Dei, Jean Cardinal Daniélou, and Fr John Echert who has a Licentiate in Sacred Scripture, explains the woeful state of the doubters.
Being quoted repeated by others, all of the Latin Church, and with a certain bias does not constitute legitimacy, nor does pretending that the incident where Cholij, the author himself, renounced his earlier hypothesis, didn’t happen. Now, if as you state, Cholij is a “giant” who “produced definite historical studies”, and he has already acknowledged he was in error - why can’t you?
From Fathers Rumble and Carty:
“On June 26, 1960, two years before the Vatican Council, Pope [Saint] John XXIII told the Synod of the Diocese of Rome that it was sheer folly to imagine that the Catholic Church might possibly abandon what has for centuries upon centuries been one of the noblest glories of her priesthood; and he said that the heroic challenge of the ecclesiastical law of celibacy would ever be maintained.
What about it? None of the Eastern Catholics here think the Church should “abandon what has for centuries upon centuries been one of the noblest glories of her priesthood” - since we already recognize the celibate priesthood. When will you reciprocate and recognize the glories of the entire Holy Church’s priesthood, and not just one segment, while abandoning nothing?
“On June 24, 1967, Pope Paul VI [to be beatified in October 2014] issued an Encyclical on “The Celibacy of the Priesthood,” in which he reaffirmed the law, declaring its binding force for all ordained to the priesthood. He said that the reasons for retaining the law far outweighed any in favour of abolishing it, and that the world needs more than ever today this witness to the highest and most sacred spiritual values. The priest, so closely associated with Christ at the altar, reflects our Lord’s own supreme self-giving to the glorification of His heavenly Father and to the salvation of souls. The Catholic faithful in turn, moved to great reverence for their priests, realise that in urging them to a life of self-denial, they are not urging them to what in a special way they have not undertaken in their own lives. Moreover, unmarried priests can work more effectively wherever they may be sent and however difficult the circumstances, expending themselves without imposing on wife and children the inconveniences and often hardships their vocation frequently involves.”
Wonderful! Now who is this directed to again? No one who is responding to you here is in favor of abandoning the Latin practice, only practicing it the proper way, as it has always been.
**The mandatory norms of continence for Byzantine married priests following the Trullan Synod were generally patterned after the norms that then existed for married lay people: one to three days of ‘eucharistic’ continence as well as continence during the periods of fasting. Reception of communion was not frequent among the faithful during the Middle Ages; the continence rule also discouraged attempts by married priests to celebrate the Eucharist daily. Non-monastic priests were expected to be married. From the eleventh century norms appear which prohibit the ordination to the parochial ministry of an unmarried man. Those celibates who worked closely with the bishop would be unmarried priests who had taken the monastic profession. Thus arose, in later Russia, the distinction between the ‘black’-(monastic) clergy and the ‘white’ (parochial) clergy. Those married clergy who became widowers were compelled to leave their ministry and enter a monastery. The Synod of Moscow (1666-1667) abrogated this requirement, at the same time authorizing remarriage with reduction to the state of a minor cleric. Bishops, in keeping with the spirit, if not the letter, of Trullan legislation, were chosen from amongst monastic candidates, although, exceptionally, a celibate layman would be ordained after making monastic profession.
More research is needed to understand properly the developments in the non-Chalcedonian Churches under Islamic rule. It is reasonable to assume, however, that whilst under Byzantine rule imperial legislation was required to be observed. By the High Middle Ages a tradition had developed in the Coptic Church of ordaining children to the diaconate. They were permitted to marry after reaching puberty. The Nestorians, who were outside the Empire, continued from the fifth century to have a married clergy not bound to strict continence. All Orthodox Churches today have a married clergy. - Roman Cholij**
Again, more evidence, from per-eminent “giants in the faith” that your conclusion is in error and even the Entirety of the Eastern Churches practice hasn’t been recognized by the study itself.
