“To incred Joe, who mentioned a ‘third vow -obedience’, while I do not know for sure, since Bozek is not a ‘religious’, it is highly unlikely that he ever took any vows, much less a third one of obedience.”
Although diocesan priests don't take vows, they do promise obedience to their bishops. Mr. Bozek has violated his promise of obedience.
Even though the Church distinguishes between vows and promises, most ordinary folks don't, and thus, incredulous joe's remarks were on-target, even if he didn't use a particular word in its most technical ecclesiastical sense.
“To Venturer, who said ‘the priest is no longer a priest’ -”...
While it's true that ontologically, once ordained a priest, a man is a priest forever, it's also true that a priest removed from the clerical state may no longer licitly present himself as a priest or function as a priest (with some narrow exceptions). As well, in dismissal from the clerical state, he no longer holds the ecclesiastical office of "priest." Thus, it isn't unreasonable to say colloquially “the priest is no longer a priest.”
Although not entirely correct, it certainly doesn't merit the remark:
“the Council of Trent in effect said ‘go to hell’ - ‘Si quis dixerit, eum qui semel sacerdos fuit, laicum rursus fieri posse, anathema sit’ - Den. 964”
What an uncharitable post.
sitetest
Words “anathema sit” are Trent’s not mine. Charity does not mean be untruthful.