The "menu" of disciplines cited in the catechism above affirms the founding of these traditions of men.
Menu? Disciplines meaning the difference between the Latin and Eastern Churches? Celibacy is embraced in both churches; however, the Eastern Catholic Churches do allow for a married priesthood, with restrictions. A married priest must be matched to a particular parish. The church recognizes that the married priest made his first vow to a wife and the second vow to the church, and those become his priorities. The celibate priest is 'married' to the church. He is the father of a congregation.
These are not the traditions of men but those of Christ who founded the church, as cited in the CCC.
If the Lord's highest will was accomplished in Peter's life -- then why shouldn't all of His servants in the church be permitted to marry and continue to serve -- including recognition at the strategic levels of leadership?...
How do you determine that Peter's life = the Lord's highest will?
The socio-cultural and religious climate in which Jesus lived favoured married life, for we know that in the Jewish environment no condition was so much deprecated as that of a man who had no descendants. Yet Christ willed, harmoniously and intimately, to combine the virginal state with his mission as eternal priest and mediator between heaven and earth. We can therefore affirm that chastity and virginity are not simply additional or secondary to Christ’s priestly existence, but belong to its very essence.
By priestly ordination, every priest is configured to Christ and shares in his priesthood. From this identification with Christ, it follows that he who follows Christ in the priesthood, assents to becoming his witness and to adhering strictly to the ontological connotations of his priesthood.
Like Christ, the priest is called to give himself totally and with undivided heart to God and the brethren, even to the sacrifice of himself. Of course, no one can claim to achieve so exalted an ideal on his own. The call to the priesthood, like celibacy which is linked to it, is a gift which comes from God; it is therefore a supernatural reality, a mystery. «‘For not all men’, says the Lord, ‘can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given’» (Mt 19:11). Not all, that is to say, are called by God to the height of total self-giving to him in perfect chastity, in accordance with the actual model, Christ. Not to all does God give the potentiality inherent in virginity.
Are not those priests who later choose to marry expected to resign the priesthood in order to do so?
Yes. These priests made a vow and chose to break it.
Don't you find these disciplines incongruent with the Lord's heart??
These are his disciplines; hence they come from his heart. "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife."
Even among the Eleven -- many our apostolic fathers were happily married and were not weakened in their mission of spreading the Gospel.
The only Apostle we know was married, was St. Peter.
They served at the earliest, most strategic levels of our faith -- and the large majority made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of Christ?
The earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times.
But I pray for the sake of the Body of Christ -- that all of the church would embrace the Lord's heart -- that Godly marriage and faithfulness therein is NOT a disqualifying mark on a man's life...
It's not ... in the Eastern Churches, but it comes with limitations. The image used to describe the role of the priest is one of marriage to the Church. Just as marriage is the total gift of self to another, the priesthood requires the total gift of self to the Church. A priest's first duty is to his flock, while a husband's first duty is to his wife. Obviously, these two roles will often conflict, as St. Paul noted and as many married priests will tell you. A celibate priest is able to give his undivided attention to his parishioners without the added responsibility of caring for his own family. They are able to pick up and go whenever necessary, whether this involves moving to a new parish or responding to a late-night crisis. Celibate priests are better able to respond to these frequent changes and demands on their time and attention.
And that is the "heart" of our Lord! Jesus Himself practiced it!
Jesus practices celibacy because he wasn't married. Jesus never taught against marriage.
Wow. More things that differ from the Bible. Hebrews 5:1-4
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
How was Aaron called? I believe in Exodus Chapter 28 it is clear.
1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons...
41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.
Moses approached them as he was commanded to do. Jesus approached his apostles. John 15:16 is very clear on this.
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Based on these I believe God does the choosing.
I sense that we may "agree to disagree" on some matters -- but a sensible and reasoned discourse remains of great value.
I sense and respect the cherished value of the CCC to your own heart and others of Catholic persuasion -- Yet I know this was written, legislated, negotiated, and abridged many time through the years. It remains a valuable amplification for life in the organism --His Body -- and a working framework of reference for the organization the corporate church.
But this framework of declaration does not rise to the same level of a authority as the Holy Biblical Scriptures -- therefore its citation remains a valuable guide to those so subscribed -- even as you cited the Talmudic tradition -- remains authoritative to the tradition of our kindred, Israel.
I also expect we will not completely agree on the example you have now cited twice --
The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy.
I simply disagree with these findings of our brethren of long ago -- I conceded that their legislation was for those under their sovereignty --
But I would hold that such an order was contrary to the intent and spirit of 1 Corinthians 7:3-4,and 7
Some of this is plain on its face -- e.g.
It remains so clear OT & NT -- that God loves and esteems the covenants, the estate and the people joined in holy marriage -- As an earthly token and symbol of the love of Christ for all of the church --
And Jesus suffered the little children to come; and He rebuked His disciples and forbade them not-- further -- he stringently warned of the damnation to come for anyone who caused these little ones to stumble! (Matthew 18:6)
And we agree that as Christ was indeed chaste -- the law required a perfect Lamb -- and He is holding virtue for His Bride--an obedient Son, yes -- AND faithfully betrothed --- She is yet to be presented to Him --He remains so pure in expectation that the Bride will come to Him in full and holy array -- without spot wrinkle or blemish... Both Bride and Groom will be holy, meet, and fit for the marriage supper of the Lamb!
So much of the Song of Songs appears to be a viable spiritual & prophetic picture of the love and mutual adoration that Christ holds for His Beloved... the church.
Regarding our brother Peter -- hard to find you challenging this guy!
If bringing the fullness of the revelation of Jesus Christ to the known world -- including the Gentile -- beginning with the Romans (Cornelius & family)-- and following the Master in life and cruel torture and death for the sake of the Gospel --
IF THAT IS NOT living on earth in human form and inspired of the Holy Spirit to a committed fulfillment of mission; even unto the highest calling and obedience to Christ --IT WILL DO until a better opportunity arrives! --
I cry out to God to emulate the courage, longsuffering and complete obedience of the big fisherman -- this side of my Lord Jesus -- Peter remains one of my heroes of the faith... He still had his quirks and issues -- But does not the Lord's servant, the highest spiritual authority and Leader of the Catholic church sit in the seat of this same fisherman?
Regarding the Eleven -- 1 Corinthians 9:5 clearly infers that (among the apostles--plural), and the Lord's brothers (plural -- odds are more than probable including James- half brother of Jesus Christ), and (named apostle) Peter brought a sister (in Christ) who was their (believing) spouse with them -- and that they were entitled to maintenance for them. I doubt they were referring to siblings and it would have been inappropriate to bring (unmarried) female servants along
Suffice it to say.... I am not objecting to voluntary celibacy or singleness, nor its esteemed place in the ministry -- so please don't misunderstand --
But their are many valuable gifts vested in the married men of God... and if they are following Christ --- baggage and all-- they will reproduce -- after their kind
Your final summary makes a lot of sense -- and handling the responsibilities of marriage, family, and ministry -- I have observed-- is quite a juggling feat -- However...
Shouldn't those among you who are up for the challenge of those several responsibilities be permitted to accept them all before God?? And not forbidden by men??
Time to go... too many questions and places to plant our various theses in all of this... We may never completely agree -- about priesthood, ministry, and all of the opportunities presented to announce the Kingdom, and glorify the Lord therein...
But I believe we are each finishing the race "marked out" for us... and I choose now to pray and trust that we all will finish well!
It may be that one feature of the plan for a good life in eternity-- is in order to continue the chat -- and sort all these things out... (humor)
Have a blessed Lord's day!