[fatboy]

In response to this and other questions I have posed regarding catholic doctrine that is unsupported by the Bible, my catholic friends and family have assured me that their church has in place a “magisterium” that protects the faithful from error. This is of course in opposition to the evangelicals that argue that the Bible is silent on this magisterium but does mention that the believer can access the Holy Spirit for guidance.

As an evangelical I have been saying that in my view the Bible doesn’t support the catholic doctrine of celibacy of priests. For that matter, I have been saying that the Bible doesn’t support the office of priest in the New Testament church.

So my question is, if the magisterium has been correct regarding priestly celibacy for 1500-2000 years and all of a sudden the church reverses course and abolishes the celibacy rule, what would such a speculated change in doctrine say about the reliability of the magisterium?

[GOP_Party_Animal]

...if the magisterium has been correct regarding priestly celibacy for 1500-2000 years and all of a sudden the church reverses course and abolishes the celibacy rule, what would such a speculated change in doctrine say about the reliability of the magisterium?

That's one of the main reasons I think this article is more alarmist than factual. Francis knows he cannot successfully change Church doctrine in such a radical sense. To do so would undermine the teaching authority of the Church, just as you say.

[moonhawk]

I think the answer is that the Pope, speaking as an individual, is not speaking for the Magisterium.

And, certain things the Church does, are traditional, and not necessarily “De Fide”, of the faith.

But which is which, in this instance, I will leave to the more knowledgeable Catholics here.

[Campion]

Celibacy is discipline, not doctrine. There are married priests already, which there couldn’t be if it were doctrine.

[ealgeone]

A cursory survey of Roman Catholicism shows a number of changes in their theology over the years.

This would be just another.

[heartwood]

Not sure of the correct terms here but a celibate priesthood was a “prudential” requirement, to free priests from the cares of supporting a family and to avoid the possibilities of corruption in passing down church property and position to heirs. Not a necessary or inherent requirement of the priesthood, Eastern rite Catholics have married priests.

Maybe prudential these days would be ordaining deacons after they and their wives had reached a mature age, say 45 or 50.

[RichardMoore]

Celibacy is not what is defined as an “Article of Faith.”