The ban on marriage is also entirely unbiblical.
I’ve yet to see a Catholic explain these two facts:
* They claim the popes have their authority as the successors of St Peter.
* The Bible clearly mentions that Peter was married.
However, where the Bible is silent, tradition is not. Tradition says that Peter had a wife and a daughter who went with him to Rome.
The evidence points both directions in the case of St. Paul. Paul clearly teaches in 1 Cor 7 that celibacy is superior to marriage as far as serving the Lord is concerned. Have you read it?
Almost all commentators agree that John the Evangelist was celibate.
Of course, what was common by way of concession in the early church is not necessarily the discipline that would be expected 2000 years later. See my post above.
Not sure if Peter was married before meeting Christ. I assume so. But, this is besides the point.
As this foolish pope actually gets right, there’s no commandment against married priests. The idea behind the prohibition was that marriage/children would be too much of a time draw away from the vocation. Unfortunately, the consequence of this was it created a hive of gay/pedophilic activity. This is one of the biggest reasons why I support the reversal of this decision. There will be more straights on the inside to keep the gays in check.
See Saint Paul’s and Jesus’ sayings on celebacy, especially for the sake of the kingdom.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/celibacy-and-the-priesthood
For the authority of Saint Peter and his successors:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
It’s all very well documented.
There isn’t a ban on being married as a priest. It is also not a Catholic teaching that they can’t be married, it is a discipline.
There are currently many married priests that converted from Anglican to Catholic.
Eastern rite Catholics also have married priests and are in union with the Pope.