In essentials, unity

[rr1213]

Again, marriage is a free choice as is the priesthood. There is no compulsion.

Peter was married. Paul talks about how he would have the right to bring his wife on his missions as do Peter and the other apostles. Paul teaches that the clergy must be men of but one wife. Paul teaches that no one sins by marrying and that it is better to marry than to burn. No one (at least me) is arguing that it is mandatory to marry, because Paul also teaches as you note above that this is not the case. What is the case is that this is an area of explicit Christian liberty–including the Christian liberty of the priesthood. It seems to me that the Church would define a married priesthood out of existence as well if it could, but it instead faces too many explicit Scriptural references that allow it. If Scripture specifically allows it, then the Church cannot prohibit it.

We are told that we may eat meat. If the Church someday teaches that a vegetarian lifestyle is a matter of faith and morals and that meat is prohibited, then are you going to say this is simply a “membership requirement”?

 

[jemfinch]

Peter was married. Paul talks about how he would have the right to bring his wife on his missions as do Peter and the other apostles. Paul teaches that the clergy must be men of but one wife.

But let’s also note that Jesus and Paul also teach that to be single is a higher calling than to be married. Paul even teaches this using the specific example of the ministry.

Certainly, if the Apostles could bind and loose anything, they could choose which faithful men to lay their hands on. Likewise the Church has the power to choose which faithful men on whom it will bestow the sacrament of the Holy Orders, and the Latin rite has chosen not to bestow it upon married men (in most cases).

Jeremy