He is one of those can't-really-call-him-Trad's who opted to go Eastern Rite even though his family isn't from that part of the world, not at all. a few Catholics decide to change their nation/race and pretend they're oriental Catholics.
never pretended to be eastern rite. have always been Latin rite. ps i do have family from that part of the world
I don't see how that's a solution -- I don't have any personal experience with the Eastern Rites, but I've heard they were ALL touched by Vatican II.
:confused1:
from whom? Latin rite Catholics who as you say are not part of that world?
His long post about all the bad popes "all unmarried" tries to suggest that if they had been allowed to marry, they might not have had problems with purity.
false i do not believe in married Latin clergy. the list was a way of pointing out that the statement that celibacy was always the norm is not historically accurate otherwise Pope Gregory would not have had to make it mandatory.
He also claims that because we had a few bad popes who had concubines and other illicit partners, that it constitutes a sort of "tradition" of non-celibacy in the West. Give me a break! They flaunted morality and the rules. They don't count!
I never claimed that see above "false i do not believe in married Latin clergy"
In fact, I don't think there is any evidence that any priest, bishop or pope FATHERED CHILDREN (to put it delicately) while possessing the sacred character of the priesthood. If he had a wife, they either separated or lived as brother and sister.

why then were there canonical penalties for that very thing then?
celibacy is and will always be the norm for Latin rite priests. my point was that men sin and even priests sin. that shows how beautiful celibacy is, the vast majority of priests and clerics are and will be celibate.
I never advocated married priesthood in the Latin Rite. period. [/i]