Which is what the Catholic church teaches. Your error is not in what you assert being contrary to the Church your error is attributing to the Church what she does not teach.
There simply is no error except by your own perception or contsruance. I am the one who first focused on Rome and then first documented the distinctions btwn the Latin and Byzantine rite on this while showing both have celibacy requirements. 2.
“2. contrary to the assertion that that celibacy is not a requirement at all”
It’s not a requirement to ordination either in the Byzantine rite or in the Latin rite. Converted clerics don’t have to divorce their wife once regularized, even in the Latin rite.
Again, you are misrepresenting my argument and then charging a contradiction. Where did i say celibacy was an absolute requirement for the priesthood of Rome or for EO priests? Instead i stated Rome required celibacy almost for all while the EOs did so for bishops and unmarried priests after ordination and remarriage for widowed priests.
“3. contrary to different titles for classes of pastors and titled priests, in Scripture bishops are elders and elders are bishops, the distinctive hierarchical titles being a latter development”
I would contest this. The disciples came first. The disciples being apostles and bishops came before there ever was a priest. The distinction between the two would come up at the first council in Jerusalem and well within the first century. Assertions that the ‘threefold structure’ did not exist in scripture is not only contrary to acts, but is evidence of reading into the text what is not there. You may believe this - the text does not support it.
Not so; there simply is no use of hiereus for either the apostles and bishops being a class of priests distinctive from the general priesthood of the laity, and while there is a distinction in office btwn apostles and bishops, there is no distinction btwn bishops and elders. In Acts 15 the bishops are elders, just as in Acts 20.
Your own NAB notes on Titus 1:5-7 admit, "In Ti 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbyteros (“bishop” and “presbyter”) refer to the same persons."
"...ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:..."For a bishop must be blameless..." (Titus 1:5,7)
Assertions that the ‘threefold structure’ of apostles and bishops and elders existed in scripture is not only contrary to Acts, but is evidence of reading into the text what is not there. You may believe this - the text does not support it.
“4. contrary to your assumption, i myself did not argue for married priests ‘so married men don’t feel excluded’.”
You go on to argue, “but they make excellent preachers”. Either you believe that the church would benefit (which is a utilitarian ethos, or that you believe the exclusion is unwarranted, which need I elaborate is a bad basis to base canon law on the self-esteem of the recipient.
That quote from me simply does not exist, nor does arguing for married priests from me based on the self-esteem of the recipient, which i agree is not valid reasoning (but you asked for input from Orthodox sources). Nor does allowing for some single men being pastors warrant that being the norm.
5. “Rome and the EO have differences in celibacy requirements.”
It’s not a requirement. Again. It’s a discipline. Words are important because misuse of words is what is tripping you up here.
Rather than me being tripped up, it is you who is engaging in semantics in trying to find a contradiction that does nor exist. It is a requirement, a disciplinary rule (canon law ), and rather than me doing the tripping up, again, i made it clear that this was not dogma but changeable law, as well as there being differences within Catholicism on celibacy.
“6. contrary to your blanket assertion otherwise, the Catholic church does have celibacy requirements.”
No, it does not. The Latin Rite has a discipline. The Byzantine Rite has a different one. The Catholic church has a continence requirement which is doctrinal and does not very across the rites, and the Catholic church has a celibacy discipline which does vary across the rites.
Talk about being tripped up. It is impossible to not have celibacy requirements when a disciplinary rule forbids married men from becoming priests unless they are married converts, or that forbids unmarried or widowed men after ordination to marry. While you want to deny this is being a requirement, it is, even if not unchangeable as doctrine.
“9. contrary to your assertions, the text does not actually say “but one wife, but simply “one wife, and “mia” is not always restricted to one, nonetheless contrary to your charge that i cannot accept the interpretation that “one wife” is forbidding polygamy, i can, but that the husband requirement goes beyond this.”
Ordaining a husband requires one to be married first then ordained. If you’re asserting a marriage requirement - this would actually rule out marrying after ordination altogether.
Ordaining a husband does not rule out marrying after ordination unless no single persons can be ordained, which is not being argued as absolute, but from the beginning it was that, rather than requiring most all pastors to have the gift of celibacy, the norm is that they were married..
There’s nothing in scripture that permits marriage after ordination. Nothing at all. You say this is what the Church ought to do and teach - you should be able to provide some evidence for this from scripture.
You ignored the case of the two single apostles, (1Cor. 9:5) which after becoming apostles had freedom to take a wife. Paul was already a sovereignly called apostle yet asserted he had freedom to have a wife like the other apostles did, though he chose not to, like as he chose not to support himself, though that was not always the case.
Meanwhile, there’s nothing in scripture that forbids marriage after ordination. Nothing at all. If you say this is what the Church ought to do and teach, then you should be able to provide some evidence for this from Scripture - if warrant from Scripture was actually necessary.
“nowhere does he see fit to detail how single men should be likewise proven to be able governors.”
Yet you argue an ordained man should be allowed to marry. This is a paradox and demonstrates that your position is logically untenable.
Not so, you as contrary to your perception, my argument was not that there is no record of single men being pastors and absolute exclusion of them, but that the requirements do not mention single men, and there are only two know single pastors, thus excluding it from being the norm. It is your objection against married men being the norm that is untenable in the light of all the evidence.
“were the norm”
I asked you to prove to me where scripture uses the word ‘norm’ anywhere. Does it use the word? No? Then why are you reading into the text something that the text does not say?
I address your argument behind it, and this attempt to find some charge is also absurd. Do you really hold that an explicit statement is required for something to be true? Would you say that in the light of the fact that manifestly single men are rare in the OT in contrast to married men, then is it wrong to state that it was the norm for men to have been married in the OT because there that word is not used, and thus one is reading this into the text???
Likewise when Scripture only records two pastors as being clearly single, and only married men are mentioned in qualifications, then the warranted conclusion is that married pastors was the norm
The Bible also does not explicitly state the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of a Triune God, but that is that a valid conclusion based on statements that are made. And RCs go well beyond this in extrapolating support for such things as the sinlessness, perpetual virginity and bodily assumption of Mary.
Meanwhile it is you who asserted that the word "but" was part of 1 Tim. 3:2, when it is not there, though it is a reasonable rendering.
“but the case of widowed pastors.”
That’s a separate question. This is an excellent question. Canon law states that a widower may become a priest, as the sacrament of marriage no longer applies. The widower may not remarry after becoming a priest. Continence is required, virginity is not.
I did not one say celibacy meant virginity, or that a widower may not become a priest.
Snips random drivel. "Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven”
Finally the cite. Continence != celibacy.
Glad you like my quoting canon law now, and which continues,
"and are therefore bound to celibacy." Which again does not mean virginity, which is not what i taught, nor does anything here contradict what i taught or reveal a misrepresentation of what is taught, despite your doing so of myself in your many fallacious attempts in trying to charge me with contradictions.
You have used too much of my time in so doing, but which has exposed what RCs will resort to in trying to defend the object of their devotion.
“You have used too much of my time in so doing, but which has exposed what RCs will resort to in trying to defend the object of their devotion.”
Yawn. Thought it might be worthwhile apparently I was mistaken.