>>14929466>In summary:>Members of "the clergy" (ie "Priests") ~1000 years ago in The Catholic Church were permitted to be married.>Therefore The Church does "change", albeit quite slowly.Personally, one can see a "Vatican III" consisting of the following:
- Priests permitting to be wed, although the priest should be married *prior* to entering The Church.
- The New Testament updated to include some of the, "Nag Hammadi" texts that the current "Church Doctors" agree should be permitted.
- Unification with other Christian Churches (Orthodox, Anglican, etc.)
What else?
OP
>>14929449Do you have any suggestions for a possible, "Vatican III"?
The irony with "Married Priests" is that it's arguably going back to "tradition", considering it appears to be one of the earlier customs within The Church.
Of course, one of the issues with Priests marrying, is that one probably does not want to go to a Church where their Priest is busy looking for a wife because then they'll be preoccupied with other issues, and not their service to The Church.
If recalling correctly, "Deacons" are permitted to be wed and serve as a type of "clergy", however they must be married *prior* to serving The Church as Deacons.
A similar approach could be applied here to Priests.
And again, of course, such a "proposal" would likely be criticized by many within The Church today.
Who knows man.
Perhaps a, "Vatican III" is not required these days.
Just think that if ever those "other texts" are going to be recognized as "Canonical", there'd have to be major Church Council, hence the reference to some type of "Vatican III" meeting.
(Just did a quick Internet search, and other folks are talking about a "Vatican III" as well. See image.)
