Since it is only discipline no one said that it was God's will. Indeed married priests are allowed in the Eastern Rites. On the other hand, it cannot be shown that it is against God's will either. Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose, thus the Church possesses the authority to regulate its internal life.
I’ll briefly mention is that Scripture also says to remove heretics from the Church and not even to greet false teachers as to do so is to approve of their wickedness.
For this to be operative there must be a recognized and visible leadership in the Church with the authority to do so. This only exists in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. You cannot point to any Protestant church since their first leaders were removed as heretics. They then just set up their own churches and removed those who disagreed with them, who then just set up their own churches and removed those who disagreed with them, who then just set up their own churches and removed those who disagreed with them … ad infinitum. Thus the multitude of various Protestant churches we see today.
So how is it that the Catholic Church allows heretics to stay, including at the highest levels of leadership. A large percentage of these leaders just voted to approve of homosexuality. That’s blatant heresy.
As scandalous as their action was it was not the outright approval of homosexual activity. (This is not in any way to be seen as approval on my part of the vote of those bishops.) The inference might be made but a more explicit and unambiguous statement would need to be made for the a charge of heresy to be leveled. A sad event all around but in the end the Catholic teaching on human sexuality still stands.
But how much would you agree with Dollinger's critical summation:
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast...No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations, by MacDougall, pp. 119 120)
For this to be operative there must be a recognized and visible leadership in the Church with the authority to do so. This only exists in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. You cannot point to any Protestant church since their first leaders were removed as heretics.
But which premise of an supreme perpetual infallible magisterium must be based upon certain presuppositions. It seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination, transmission, preservation and assurance of Truth (including which writings and men being of God).
And to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And thus that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus of course, those whom it rejects as heretics have no authority.
Maybe your reasoning is different, but this mainly what i see.
>>Since it is only discipline no one said that it was God’s will.>>
God’s will should be the one and only measure for everything.
>>On the other hand, it cannot be shown that it is against God’s will either.>>
Scripture gives qualifications for leadership, and it doesn’t disqualify those who marry. So what exactly was the reasoning for rejecting the ways established by Jesus and those He chose to walk with Him, and to see Him after His Resurrection, and to fundamentally change the Church in so many ways? In fact, to establish a hard-and-fast rule that married men couldn’t have received a call from God to the highest offices of the Church, although in the Church as Jesus established it, they did.
>>Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose, thus the Church possesses the authority to regulate its internal life.>>
Yes, to Peter, who was a disciple of His AND, even more so, saw Him resurrected, an experience that transformed the apostles. “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.” The power to “bind and loose” is never one not under the headship of Christ, meaning whatever is done must be done in the spirit of submitting fully to God’s will.
>>For this to be operative there must be a recognized and visible leadership in the Church with the authority to do so. This only exists in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. >
Sometimes I wonder what Catholics of today would have made of Jesus when He walked the earth, and specifically if they would have accepted Him, since He angered the Jewish authorities by healing on the Sabbath and allowing His disciples to eat from the fields on the Sabbath as well, saying the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
“After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, 11 realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.” Titus 3:10-11, Catholic Bible
Vote on paragraph approving of gay unions: 118-62.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/over-half-bishops-in-synod-have-already.html?m=1
Nearly two-thirds of the Catholic leaders at this synod voted to approve homosexuality! Each that did is a heretic, and not just in the Church, but in the highest reaches of leadership! As each of them doesn’t look at homosexual behavior as a sin to repent of, how can they actually be said to believe the Gospel? They don’t, and in their job of overseeing their flocks, they bring their heresy to everything they do. Again, each one of these high Catholic leaders is a proven heretic. Titus 3:10-11 is talking about any heretic, any place in the Church, because wherever they are, they do damage. But out of the billion or so Catholics, IIRC, these are highest LEADERS, and open and unrepentant heretics which the Catholic Church does nothing about. Unbelievable! And how did things get to that point? Do you think radically altering the Church from what Jesus established might have had something to do with it?