Remaining unmarried was voluntary and whether laid down as a rule, discipline or what have you, no one had authority to require it of those serving, in fact such requirements not authorized by the Scriptures marked a departure from the faith no matter how convenient. (1 Tim 4:1-3)
But the Bible does mention a “Queen of Heaven” at Jer. 7:18.
Yeah, right. The mother of Christ is not Mary because Jerusalem is our mother. Makes a lot of sense.
In Gal 4:21-31 an allegory is drawn between Sarah and Agar, the former being freedom, the latter bondage. St. Paul was not telling the Galatians who their mother is.
This is a good time to recall that the issue really is twisting the scripture rather than reading it. I have the words of Christ, spoken with great economy: “behold your mother, — behold your son”. And then I have the woman described as mother of Christ and of His followers, wearing a crown in heaven. Direct, plain language. You are trying to tell me that my mother is Jerusalem, because St. Paul used a geographical metaphor in an argument about circumcision. Keep them coming,please.
No, “ta idia” does not mean “home”. For one thing, it is plural (”ta”, duh). The translations that insert “home” where there is none either try to make an obscure expression make everyday sense, or simply obfuscate the scripture.
A priest today is free to enter the Church in any of her Oriental rites if he is married (once) and does not wish to become a bishop, and is comfortable with the idea that should his wife pre-decease him, he will stay unmarried. This is why it is a requirement that does not depart from the ancient practices.
That some people worshiped a false Queen of Heaven does not mean there is not a true one for our veneration.
Bu tthe question was not even if you might find ways to interpret the scripture differently. I am sure you can: this is why you are a Protestant, — someone who forms his beliefs in protest against the true ones. You stated that the Catholic doctrines are opposed to the scripture, did you not? Or, you joined another who stated that. I showed you how they are not contrary to the scripture. I did not intend to show how they are not contrary to your ideas about the meaning of the relevant scripture. I was fairly sure that your ideas about the relevant scripture are probably fanciful and wrong, and now I know that.
If you have further questons, I will get to them tomorrow.