It was quite interesting.
First of all, the Church's beliefs are based BOTH on Scripture AND Tradition--there are some things which were practiced, or orally transmitted, which were not written down. Thus, while Scripture provides foundation, it is only 1/2 of the foundation(s) on which the Church operates.
Now to the article. Summarily, the author, who had studied the issue extensively, brought up continence--a very important link.
Most of the discussion on these threads has been specifically about celibacy--loosely, NOT being married. But continence is rarely brought up, because continence is deliberately sacrificing legitimate marital relations for the sake of a greater good. In the specific case, it was demanded of those who would be priests, WITH THE ASSENT of the wife.
Secondly, the author mentioned the difference between "ius" and "lex." "Ius" is the unwritten law, whereas "lex" is the written law. It's sort of akin to manners: most of them are 'unwritten' laws, but failure to practice them is considered to be wrong, just as failure to practice the "written" manners is.
The author contends that the "ius" of the marriage question was that priests should NOT marry, or if they are ordained after marriage, that they should (with the assent of the wife) become continent.
The "lex" followed in around 1100-1200, whenever.
Both the "ius" and the "lex" were widely and flagrantly disobeyed, but by no means was this disobedience practiced by ALL priests at ALL times. It waxed and waned.
Summarily: 1) Continence was part of the Tradition, and both continence and celibacy should be considered when discussing the matter. 2) What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law. This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture.
Now let's argue.
LOL! Where on earth did you come up with that idea?I'm sorry, but the Catholic church has painted itself into an intellectual corner on this one and the excuses are becoming sillier and sillier. Why can't you just follow the clear teachings of scripture and the practices of the early church?
Outstanding point. I will ponder over that. Obviously, the widower should have children...and thus ruling over them, but the fact that he is WITHOUT a current wife makes for interesting debate because the CURRENT state would be in question, as opposed to the fact that he once was married. HMMMM...quite interesting.
I'm inclined to say, without giving this a great deal of thought, that the man -a widower- who was once married, to a wife, and has his children in obedience, is qualified. But, I also would yield to a better scripture for this condition.
Again, we are discussing the democratic nomination of a Church Office as opposed to a Gift of the Spirit.
As for 'house-churches', I would ask for a distinction/defintition of a house-church as you imply. I'm not aware that God distinguished a house-church from a church. He DID declare "wherever two or three are gathered in my name...", but I'm convinced that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the formalities of a larger church.
The first few chapters, 3 of them, in Revelation are addressed to seven churches in seven cities. These are most certainly not "house-churches" (meaning a couple of people), but are churches of size recognized by God. I believe these are the type of churches discussed in scripture.
Further:
Paul makes a distinction between deacons and bishops. Both are recognized and perhaps a man could be both, but the text implies they are seperate offices and could/would be held by seperate men. A house-church, as you've implied, still leaves a 'man out'. Meaning that if what you said is true, there would still be an office available for a man at someone else's house.
Celebacy was not only a 'question', it was required to be refused by Paul for both of the men. As an Apostle (chosen by God, through faith), he was not a deacon, nor a bishop (chosen by men).