[adiaireton8]

Not every difference is a contradiction. This issue, like all other Catholic/Protestant disagreements, depends on whether or not there is a living Magesterium, or whether Scripture alone is the sole authority. For if there is a living Magesterium, then it has the authority to make certain kinds of changes as necessary. Also, there are other rites within the Catholic Church in which priests can be married (and bishops I presume, but I'm not sure about that -- somebody who knows please correct me if I'm wrong). That shows (if true) that the requirement that bishops be unmarried is not a universal Catholic dogma.

Is your bishop married?

-A8

[DouglasKC]

Also, there are other rites within the Catholic Church in which priests can be married (and bishops I presume, but I'm not sure about that -- somebody who knows please correct me if I'm wrong). That shows (if true) that the requirement that bishops be unmarried is not a universal Catholic dogma.

The holy Roman Catholic church does not recognize married bishops as valid as this article makes clear:

ArchBishop Installs 4 Married Bishops

From the article:

Milingo has said that the head of the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops has demanded he send a letter of repentance by Oct. 15 to Pope Benedict XVI or face "canonical suspension."
The Vatican said Milingo violated church law when he created "the so-called `Married Priests Now' association," and when he previously celebrated Mass with married clergy. A "canonical suspension" would bar Milingo from ordaining priests, leading Mass and performing other sacraments, according to the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit writer and expert on the church.
Milingo, 76, has had a troubled relationship with the Vatican for years.

So the Vatican, the home of the head of the Roman Catholic church, has established that their bishops can't be married. The bible says that "episkopos" can be married. No matter how you slice it, they're not the same thing. Which, as I said, it my point.