Never said that it was. But there is no reason that the Church cannot restrict its candidates for the priesthood to those who have chosen celibacy, which was praised by both Jesus and Paul.
There is not even one NT pastor who is even called a priest, apart from the general priesthood of all believers (hieráteuma) in the NT church…
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning and etymology of the word priest:
Old English preset probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German presto, Old Frisian pressure, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.If you have an objection about its usage then you should object to its use to translate the Hebrew kohen and the Greek hiereus. Old English actually had a different word, sacerd, derived from the Latin sacerdos to translate these terms. Unfortunately, this has dropped out of English and thus forcing us to use the single term priest to translate two separate terms in Greek.
…it is evident that the normative state of pastors was that of being married.
The fact that Paul remained unmarried and called others to follow his example belies your private interpretation of Scripture.
Of course there is "reason," since instead of doing so or saying so, the only manner of pastorate manifest in the NT church (as well as in the OT) was one in which they were normally married, and which raising children well is presented as providing credentials for pastoral fitness.
Meanwhile celibacy is presented as a gift, and it is hardly tenable to require or presume all pastoral candidates must they gift, nor is there ever any pastoral requirement to be so. To restrict candidates for the pastorate to those who have chosen celibacy is therefore contrary to the NT church and Scripture (not that this is determinitive for Catholics). The only Scriptural argument you can have is that is no reason that the church cannot possibly allow those who have chosen celibacy to be candidates.
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning and etymology of the word priest: Old English preset probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German presto, Old Frisian pressure, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word "etymology."
Etymologies are not definitions for etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, and does not define what they originally meant. For example, "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable).
The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. "Priest" evolved from "presbyteros," if with uncertainty, with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers. (who nowhere are assigned a unique sacerdotal function).
If you have an objection about its usage then you should object to its use to translate the Hebrew kohen and the Greek hiereus. Old English actually had a different word, sacerd, derived from the Latin sacerdos to translate these terms. Unfortunately, this has dropped out of English and thus forcing us to use the single term priest to translate two separate terms in Greek.
Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for priest, and for NT pastors, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors.
Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdos" (plural, "sacerdotes") for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros, and sacerdos has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which technicalities I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). An Orthodox historian scholar admits that "the word "priesthood" is itself a corruption of the Greek "presbyter." (John Anthony McGuckin, "The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture)
Of course, is Catholics would simply follow links posting this reproof would not be necessary.
The fact that Paul remained unmarried and called others to follow his example belies your private interpretation of Scripture.
Which is more sophistry, for the very example Paul provided was one who "manner was" to reasoned out of the scriptures with those who knew them, (Acts 17:2) and who wrote Scripture which teaches just the opposite of requiring clerical celibate!
Indeed, if "follow me" meant to be as him in every particular, so that (among other things) all were to be celibate as him, then Paul would be contradicting himself!
All of which is proof that Catholics did not change the Bible as Muslim assert, for they did a very poor job if they did. For the RC version would read something like,
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a priest , he desireth a good work. A priest then must be blameless, celibate, having no wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, apt to teach, fit to confect the Eucharist, not given to too much wine...One that will rule well his own house, having his spiritual children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own body, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 RC Timothy 3:2-5)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain priests in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, being no husband of any wife, that he may have faithful spiritual children not accused of riot or being unruly. (RC Titus 1:5-6)
For I would that all men were even as I myself, for every man hath this proper gift of God, especially to live after this manner as befits priests, and while the laity may be married. (RC 1 Corinthians 7:7)
For we have not power to leading about a sister, a wife, nor do the other apostles, nor the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (RC 1 Corinthians 9:5)
Praised?
What verses please.
Paul was not speaking to pastors...It was not a teaching for pastors...Paul was speaking to the congregations...The requirements for pastors is laid out in other places in the scriptures and does not allow unmarried, childless pastors...