[Lera]

The requirement that bishops be celibate in the Western church is a disciplinary rule, not doctrine. There’s a difference. Disciplines can be changed, doctrine can not. That’s why there will never be women priests in the Catholic Church. It’s a doctrine, and can not be changed.

Oh brother...I’ve probably opened another can of worms here!

---

OK I can accept that is a disciplinary rule and not doctrine, my mistake.

Why have a disciplinary rule that goes against scripture ?

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

And yes I think having unmarried Bishops is a huge mistake.
They have never had to raise children or run a house of their own. Since none of them have had this experience they tend to fall heavy on the social justice side.
Social justice is not much different than coveting other goods.
You know like how this mentality gave support to obscene things like 0’s deathcare they supported

[presently no screen name]

and illegal immigration.

[Deo volente]

It’s refreshing to see someone from the non-Catholic side admit they made a mistake.

I can’t find the post right now (it was hundreds of posts ago), but I also made a mistake when I said that a pope called the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was Constantine who convened the council. I was corrected by several posters but forgot to acknowledge my mistake personally. Well, I was wrong.

excerpt:
This council opened on 19 June in the presence of the emperor, but it is uncertain who presided over the sessions. In the extant lists of bishops present, Ossius of Cordova, and the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius are listed before the other names, but it is more likely that Eustathius of Antioch or Alexander of Alexandria presided. (see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J.)

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm

[Cronos]

The thing is that it does not go against scripture. Scripture does not say he has to be married, only that, if married, he should have only one wife and be able to manage order in his house. It says "husband of one wife" not "must be married".

Saying that, if there is a married man who wishes to become a Catholic priest and he follows the precepts listed in Timothy,then yes, we welcome him to any Eastern Catholic Church as a priest.

If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8,

7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am

A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. In the Assyrian Church, in the 5th century they changed the rule to having married priests, but acknowledged that they had changed an existing precept.

[Cronos]

I disagree with you (about married Bishops) on a historical and anecdotal level --> if you check through history and find married men as bishops, most do try to "get something for their own" as a bishop's job is also very administrative and has a lot of responsibility.

Married priests, well, yes, I do see advantages in the Eastern Catholic Churchs, but not married bishops (as I see in Lutheran, Anglican etc. groups)

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘You know like how this mentality gave support to obscene things like 0’s deathcare they supported’.

A small point, perhaps, but the Catholic Church in America opposed Obamacare vociferously. Certain Catholic groups including the organization of Catholic hospitals supported it, but they do not and cannot speak for the Church.