The Final Skirmish of the Final Battle?

Fatima Perspectives ^ | June 28, 2019 | Chris Ferrara

[Wonder Warthog]

"What Anglican rite churches are in communion with Rome?"

Those that are members of the "Ordinariate of St. Peter". These are former Episcopalians and Anglicans who petitioned Rome as whole churches to be brought into full communion with Rome. They are fully members of the Roman Church, but use a different (English) form of the Mass.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are legit arguments --- which I would support --- for retaining celibacy for the most part in the Western (Roman) Rite. It was recommended by St. Paul, for one, and it imitates Christ.

I think one reason why people are realistically reacting against it, is that it is being used as a rhetorical springboard for many other initiatives.

The very idea of voluntary celibacy (which is what priestly celibacy is) goes against the whole modern ideology that sexual expression is a core human right, and everybody's gotta "do it" or they are either suppressed, oppressed, repressed, or depressed.

I think celibacy is one shining, and frankly countercultural sign that our real "fulfillment" as human beings is not in this world but in the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:12 (KJV)
There are some which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

[ealgeone]

There are legit arguments --- which I would support --- for retaining celibacy for the most part in the Western (Roman) Rite. It was recommended by St. Paul, for one, and it imitates Christ.

I think your Roman Catholicism is clouding your vision on this one.

5Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 NASB

The very idea of voluntary celibacy (which is what priestly celibacy is) goes against the whole modern ideology that sexual expression is a core human right, and everybody's gotta "do it" or they are either suppressed, oppressed, repressed, or depressed.

OR one could argue it goes against Gods' command to be fruitful and multiply.

Kinda hard for Rome to advance this and not allow their priest to marry. Goes against that walk the walk example.

I don't think many of the RC priests have made themselves eunuchs.

[piusv]

OR one could argue it goes against Gods' command to be fruitful and multiply.

Nah, we have plenty of self-professed Christians who manage to do that. :-)

[Biggirl]

Did not Paul address this in his letters to Timothy and Titus?

[ealgeone]

Pretty sure he did. No problems with married clergy at all.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Beginning I think in 2009, three ordinariates (which are like special dioceses, headed by bishops) were brought into being for Anglicans being received into the Catholic Church.

These ordinariates overlap geographically with regular Catholic territorial dioceses, but they are separate because they retain some elements of the Anglican liturgy and a sense of English culture and apiritual heritage

Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (England and Wales, Scotland);

Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter (United States, Canada);

Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross (Australia, Japan).

I think they have married priests as an ongoing thing. But not married bishops, unless I am mistaken. And they are not within th Anglican communion anymore, but rather, the are Catholics with Anglican rites.

Many of them are people who decamped from the Anglican/Episcopal churches over (goofy) liturgical experimentation, the ordination of women and open homosexuals as priests, the mainstreaming of homosexuality including (pseudo)marriage, and other violations of Biblical tradition.

I think (or hope) that they will be leaders in rejecting that kind of garbage and stopping it from infiltrating into the Catholic Church.

It is a constant struggle, as I think we all know.

[Mrs. Don-o]

God did not give "Be fruitful and multiply" as a mandatory command for every human individual. It is more of a command to species as a whole, as we see He gave this command to the animals also:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

Procreation is inherent in sexual union and is part of the vocation of the married, Pretty obviously,it is not mandatory for the unmarried.

If it were, Jesus would be in violation, as well as anyone who reaches puberty and is not engaged in procreation.

[ealgeone]

I see context is still lost on you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, how sweet. It’s kinda spooky, how often I think the same of you. Great minds...

[moonhawk]

Thanks for that. I will read up on it.

[ealgeone]

Oh, how sweet. It’s kinda spooky, how often I think the same of you. Great minds...

LOL! I assure you though....my context and understanding of Scripture is far better than yours.

You may recall your error on Paul not saying anything Jesus told him.

This is but one example.

[moonhawk]

Very good. Thanks for the reply, Mrs Don-O.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I think (or hope) that they will be leaders in rejecting that kind of garbage and stopping it from infiltrating into the Catholic Church."

I think they will be, sort of like Eastern Europe is to the current fascination with socialism....been there, done that...didn't buy the t-shirt.

My faith formation was in a "high" Episcopal parish in very Roman Catholic South Louisiana. Altar boy and all that. I severed ties with the onset of women priests and "swam the Tiber" in 2006.

I have seen commentary to the effect that the current Anglican use rite is, in effect, what Vatican II was supposed to produce, but didn't.

"It is a constant struggle, as I think we all know."

Of course....until He comes again.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I was wrong when I said Paul offers not one direct quote [from Jesus.]of what he heard and learned after his conversion.

I knew Paul quotes what Jesus said at the time of his conversion. But now a quick glance shows me that Paul does quote (though rarely) when Jesus told him after this event, e.g. Acts 18:9-10 ----Acts 20:35 ----and 2 Cor. 12:9.

There's also 2 Corinthians: the words of consecration (which is what He said also in the Synoptic Gospels).

So I was wrong about "not one direct quote." There were at least four. I was dumb to post that without checking.

What Paul doesn't do, is quote what he learned from the Lord in the days, weeks, months, and years after the road-to-Damascus incident. Most of what he taught in the Epistles must be what he learned personally from the Lord --- but he does not give even paragraphs, let alone pages, of direct quotes from Him.

Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews: no quotes from Jesus.

Nor does he give a comprehensive, line-by-line interpretation of even one book of the NT.

There are 10 books of the OT that are never even quoted once in the NT. Or 17, if you look at the whole 46-book unabridged text of the OT.

So what?

My point, ealgeone, is that you faulted the Catholic Church for not giving authoritative, line-by-line interpretations of all the Scriptures. So what? What does that prove?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Interesting, Warty. I'm ignorant about all these things, but I'd like to know more.

I do wonder what the 40 Catholic Martyrs of England and Wales would think about the Cranmerization (is that a word?) of the Novus Ordo. What would Margaret Clitherow think?

[Iscool]

I am no prophet, but it does not take a prophet to know that we ought to be preparing ourselves for the most dramatic events in both the Church and the world in the days to come, in which it seems the Adversary is mounting a final assault that threatens to breach and overrun the citadel. God will never allow that attack to succeed, for it would destroy the Church.

God will allow that and yes, it will destroy your Church...

It doesn't take a prophet to know that your pope is working hard to unite the Catholic and muzlims worlds...The two largest religions on the planet...Your pope has called for a one world gov't, ultimately with a one world religion...

The world is in a state of chaos and it's looking more like the days just before Noah's flood and working towards another Sodom and Gomorrah...

We bible Christians know the Rapture is imminent...We will be removed from the earth and will not hinder the new Catholic/muzlims religon that will take over...

When the Anti-Christ shows up and proclaims to be God with lying signs and wonders, Catholics and muzlims will be deceived into believing he really is God/Jesus...

Lots of interesting things happening in the world...
Iran is looking to destroy Israel...
Some in the gov't claim there are numerous suitcase type nuclear weapon in the U.S. just waiting the signal to detonate...
Earthquakes in Yellowstone and California as well are going off the charts...
It is now admitted by different gov'ts around the world and ours as well that they have been actively researching UFOs forever and now confirm they are REAL...After the Rapture there's going to be a LOT of strange looking beings showing up that the religious world will mistakenly accept as being angels...

The next time Jesus shows up on earth, he's bringing death and destruction and plagues...Jesus leaves some good advice for those of you who consider yourselves Christians:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

[ealgeone]

I was wrong when I said Paul offers not one direct quote [from Jesus.]of what he heard and learned after his conversion.

Good of you to admit the error.

What Paul doesn't do, is quote what he learned from the Lord in the days, weeks, months, and years after the road-to-Damascus incident. Most of what he taught in the Epistles must be what he learned personally from the Lord --- but he does not give even paragraphs, let alone pages, of direct quotes from Him.

As I noted earlier, one could make an argument Paul received ALL of his inspired writings from the Lord.

There are 10 books of the OT that are never even quoted once in the NT. Or 17, if you look at the whole 46-book unabridged text of the OT.

Source please.

My point, ealgeone, is that you faulted the Catholic Church for not giving authoritative, line-by-line interpretations of all the Scriptures. So what? What does that prove?

It negates the charge levied by Roman Catholics against Christians that we have YOPIOS.

But maybe more importantly, it leaves the Roman Catholic with no authoritative guidance on how to understand the Scriptures.

[ealgeone]

It is now admitted by different gov'ts around the world and ours as well that they have been actively researching UFOs forever and now confirm they are REAL...After the Rapture there's going to be a LOT of strange looking beings showing up that the religious world will mistakenly accept as being angels...

I often wondered if what we're calling UFOs/aliens are really demonic forces of some sort.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Eek, I just erased my answer. OK, I'll write it again but keep it short, cause I'm outta here in a few minutes.

1. The Catholic Church teaches that all of the 27 books of the NT are divinely inspired, and therefore Paul got all his teachings with God as their principal author. That could have been visions of Christ, or it could have been the Holy Spirit. Either way, it's all God-inspired.

2. The ten OT book not directly quoted in the NT (we're talking about the 39-book OT) are here:

1. Judges
2. Ruth
3. Ezra
4. Esther
5. Ecclesiastes
6. Song of Solomon
7. Lamentations
8. Obadiah
9. Jonah
10. Zephaniah

If you refer to the whole OT, you could add to that list the seven Deuterocanonicals.

I got this list from The author, Peter Krol, who describes his somewhat lenient practice of including near-quotes. Quoted in the NT or not, all of these are authoritative Scripture.

3. The fact that the Catholic Church has not interpreted the OT authoritatively line-by-line, does not mean that we, like others, have just YOPIOS to rely on. The Catholic Church sources Her doctrine on Scripture, without necessarily interpreting the whole OT in line-by-line fashion.

You can find a copy of the Nicene Creed easily enough, which is an outline of our core doctrines, and everything in it is Scriptural,yet without quoting any verses explicitly. Do you doubt that the Nicene Creed is, nevertheless, Scripturally-sourced truth?

The Church often authoritatively excludes erroneous interpretations of Scripture. For instance, the Church does teach that "This is My Body" does not mean "This is a metaphor." This is an authoritative, negative teaching on one verse of Scripture.

The Catholic Church's inspired guidance is such that the whole Church will never be led into error by erroneous doctrines. Our sources of the truths of the Faith include not only Scripture but also Apostolic Tradition (all that the Church has believed and taught from the teachings, example and practice of the Apostles), and Natural Law (the law spoken of by Paul in Romans).