[jt8d]

"A consecrated priest is not "more profound" than a man who is called to another vocation. That is contrary to Catholic teaching, especially the recent pronouncements of John Paul II."

Really? So you are stating that the priest is just like "one of us ordinary laity," correct? There is no difference between a consecrated priest--a man who is given to absolve sin, to make oblation for sinners, and most importantly--to have the authority to call upon the Lord, to propitiate the offering of bread and wine into the the consecrated body and blood of Jesus Christ... This man is not rendered profound?

"In fact, Holy Orders does not require celibacy, as the Eastern Rite, the Permanent Diaconate, and the Anglican dispensation clearly proves."

We are not discussing the Eastern Rite, we are dicussing the Latin Rite. We are not concerned here with the "Permanent Diaconate," we are concerned with the Priesthood. Don't muddy the waters.

Moreover, by what measure do you introduce the "Anglican dispensation" into this conversation? Do you actually desire to present, as a defense, more of that wonderfully expedient ecumenism of John Paul II, et al, that makes exceptions for all things foreign, but ostricizes the orthodox Catholic faith?

[sinkspur]

Do you actually desire to present, as a defense, more of that wonderfully expedient ecumenism of John Paul II, et al, that makes exceptions for all things foreign, but ostricizes the orthodox Catholic faith?

Oh, Jeez. Just what we need around here.

Another integrist.

I've sworn off trads, schismatics, and integrists until after Pentecost.

The priestly vocation is no more sacred than the vocation of a parent. Unless you're positing that God favors some men over other men, and those men over women.

If you want to rank people in order of importance, go right ahead.