Association of Catholic Priests

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 12:58am #1

Does the Church really need yet more layers of bureaucracy?

These guys need fasting, prayer, a spring cleaning in the education department, and a good reflection on how they're going to evangelise in the 21st century.

Surely they knew the Church wasn't a democracy before they signed up? The "Association of Catholic Priests" looks like a geriatric form of the Rotary Club that has nothing to do with faith whatsoever and more to do with pumping their own media personalities. Plenty of priests with massive chips on their shoulders mixed into the bunch, many of whom were passed over for promotion, and see this as the perfect forum for promoting their rejected ideologies.

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 2:09am

This is most unfortunate. I am upset, not because these men will prevail, they won't, but because poor souls will be lost. That's it.

These priests are modernists. They do not hold the Catholic Faith in its entirety, therefore they are heretics.

It is all very sad. Sadder still that Ireland is full of Catholics who do not know their Catholic Faith and will fall victim to these vicious wolves in sheep's clothing, for that is what they are. Pope St Pius X described Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. With all other heresies, the heretic and his followers leave the Catholic Church, but with Modernism, they subvert and destroy the Faith from inside the Church, like a cancer.

Angry, prideful men who spit upon the face of Christ, scourged again with the mockery and contempt these men heap upon Him. Make no mistake about it, this is the work of Satan and his angels.

For a basic insight into why this is happening, check out this article. I do not vouch for any of the other content on that site, just this one article: http://www.saveourchurch.org/afterthecouncil.htm

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 2:22am

The Smurf wrote: »

This is most unfortunate. I am upset, not because these men will prevail, they won't, but because poor souls will be lost. That's it.

These priests are modernists. They do not hold the Catholic Faith in its entirety, therefore they are heretics.

It is all very sad. Sadder still that Ireland is full of Catholics who do not know their Catholic Faith and will fall victim to these vicious wolves in sheep's clothing, for that is what they are. Pope St Pius X described Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. With all other heresies, the heretic and his followers leave the Catholic Church, but with Modernism, they subvert and destroy the Faith from inside the Church, like a cancer.

Angry, prideful men who spit upon the face of Christ, scourged again with the mockery and contempt these men heap upon Him. Make no mistake about it, this is the work of Satan and his angels.

For a basic insight into why this is happening, check out this article. I do not vouch for any of the other content on that site, just this one article: http://www.saveourchurch.org/afterthecouncil.htm

Did you see that "Would You Believe" special last week?

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1077417

That Bishop is a coward and a disgrace (God forgive me). How he got into that position is beyond me. The religious in their civvies spouting heresies were just as bad. Remember: your collection money is going to keep these people in the style they've become accustomed to.

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 2:25am

orcanius. wrote: »

Did you see that "Would You Believe" special last week?

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1077417

That Bishop is a coward and a disgrace (God forgive me). How he got into that position is beyond me. The religious in their civvies spouting heresies were just as bad. Remember: your collection money is going to keep these people in the style they've become accustomed to.

Good morning Orcanius.

Yes, Bishop Kirby was very poor. He was unable to advise the people what to do. His heart went out to them, but he didn't have anything to say to them about Jesus Christ, the solution to their problems.

I watched the programme twice. Once to be annoyed. And the second time, for fun. (Yes, I am a strange person!) *sigh*

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 2:35am

The Smurf wrote: »

Good morning Orcanius.

Yes, the Bishop (the one with glasses) was an absolute disgrace. He was unable to advise the people what to do. His heart went out to them, but he didn't have anything to say to them about Jesus Christ, the solution to their problems.

I watched the programme twice. Once to be annoyed. And the second time, to be annoyed for pleasure. (Yes, I am a strange person!) *sigh*

That woman "writing to Pope Benedict"... lol. If she has an issue, she should raise it with her priest. She sounds like she'd be happier being a Protestant. She probably writes off letters to Barack Obama and Nicholas Sarkozy too in-between the news at one and the start of Live at Three.

Also, the homosexual chap writing to the Pope. Sigh. Is he looking for a pat on the head and special permission to engage in sodomy or something?

These people need to be sent on their merry way. If a shepherd goes after the stray sheep, he risks losing his flock. Injured, tired and stray sheep will find their way home eventually.

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 2:39am

orcanius. wrote: »

That woman "writing to Pope Benedict"... lol. If she has an issue, she should raise it with her priest. She sounds like she'd be happier being a Protestant. She probably writes off letters to Barack Obama and Nicholas Sarkozy too in-between the news at one and the start of Live at Three.

Also, the homosexual chap writing to the Pope. Sigh. Is he looking for a pat on the head and special permission to engage in sodomy or something?

These people need to be sent on their merry way. If a shepherd goes after the stray sheep, he risks losing his flock.

The lady with the short hair, driving the car, she was very angry, didn't you notice? God love her poor husband. It is lost on her obviously that a key theme of Benedict XVI is Friendship with Jesus. She hasn't a clue.

The 'gay' man, well what can be said about that. He wants his lifestyle choice validated. By the Catholic Church. Right. So the Church will change Her teaching so you can feel good about your sin. I see.

Get a grip. Have most people really jettisoned their critical reasoning? Did they have any to begin with?

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 2:57am

The Smurf wrote: »

The lady with the short hair, driving the car, she was very angry, didn't you notice? God love her poor husband. It is lost on her obviously that a key theme of Benedict XVI is Friendship with Jesus. She hasn't a clue.

The 'gay' man, well what can be said about that. He wants his lifestyle choice validated. By the Catholic Church. Right. So the Church will change Her teaching so you can feel good about your sin. I see.

Get a grip. Have most people really jettisoned their critical reasoning? Did they have any to begin with?

Jettisoning is what we should be doing. Sell off the assets that these people are leeching off of (churches, grounds, schools, hospitals, etc.) and give them back to Rome.

Tellingly, the chap with homosexual inclinations (Mr Keogh), said "to be honest... some of the things that were talked about here tonight kinda go over my head a little". Yet he feels himself fully equipped to decide on how the church should be run and what form reform should take. This is is what happens when egalitarianism and the dogma of "equality" gathers momentum in society. Thankfully fads are just that: fads. The Church has seen many fashions come and go in her time and it's no coincidence that she has been around over 2000 years.

That Brian Doyle seminarian chap seems like a decent sort and addressed some errors that were brought up in the meandering discussion.

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 3:06am

orcanius. wrote: »

That Brian Doyle seminarian chap seems like a decent sort and addressed some errors that were brought up in the meandering discussion.

Nuala O'Loan's a right Pontifical backstabber. She was perhaps the worst of the lot. ''Listen listen listen - to me!'' Then she goes and stabs the Holy Father in the back. A good Pope attacked by Nuala O'Flippin-Loan. He cuts off the seminarian to go back to... Nuala O'Loan. Again.

A little bit of knowledge + pride = nightmare

Einhard · 03-08-2010 3:10am

The Smurf wrote: »

Get a grip. Have most people really jettisoned their critical reasoning? Did they have any to begin with?

Now that's irony!

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 3:15am

Einhard wrote: »

Now that's irony!

Yeah. I was waiting for that. At 4am in the morning. Have you just come in from the pub?

What is more ironic is the lady asked at the end, would she leave the Church, and she said, 'where would I go?' echoing in an odd way the response of the Twelve, in Chapter 6 of the Gospel of St John:

But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"

Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?"

He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

It's all very familiar.

The interesting thing is this: those who remained embraced the teachings of Christ. They didn't say ''Look it, we'll stay, but we'll have to do something about those teachings.''

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 3:24am

The Smurf wrote: »

Nuala O'Loan's a right Pontifical backstabber. She was perhaps the worst of the lot. ''Listen listen listen - to me!'' Then she goes and stabs the Holy Father in the back. A good Pope attacked by Nuala O'Flippin-Loan. He cuts off the seminarian to go back to... Nuala O'Loan. Again.

A little bit of knowledge + pride = nightmare

She should stick to her career in law, public service and her family. Leave the theology to the experts in Rome who have risen through the ranks and devoted their lives to the pursuit of the Truth.

SonOfAdam · 03-08-2010 9:55am

Am reminded of 1 Corinthians 13

1If I speak in the tonguesURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28651a"][COLOR=#800080]a[/COLOR][/URL of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28653b"][COLOR=#800080]b[/COLOR][/URL but have not love, I gain nothing.

It's far easier to castigate and condemn than to love even what you think to be unlovable

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 12:12pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Am reminded of 1 Corinthians 13

1If I speak in the tonguesURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28651a"][COLOR=#800080]a[/COLOR][/URL of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28653b"][COLOR=#800080]b[/COLOR][/URL but have not love, I gain nothing.

It's far easier to castigate and condemn than to love even what you think to be unlovable

isn't that the protestant bible you quote from?catholics love all persons no matter what crimes they've committed or heresies they hold.castigating and condeming is one thing, pointing out error and heresey is quite another. i love god and fear him at the same time. belief isn't always wooly, happy-clappy, airy-fairy, sunshine, puppies and lollipops. the saving of souls is serious business.

Fanny Cradock · 03-08-2010 12:14pm

orcanius. wrote: »

isn't that the protestant bible you quote from?

What would that be?

JimiTime · 03-08-2010 12:39pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What would that be?

Why bother FC, seriously, why bother.

Fanny Cradock · 03-08-2010 12:47pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Why bother FC, seriously, why bother.

Theological masochism?

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 1:20pm

If our bishops had done more castigating and disciplining of priests over the years, I don't think we would be in the mess we are in now. The whole 'do not judge' thing really has gotten totally out of hand.

I had a chat with a fellow Catholic last week. We were actually talking about the programme. He said he couldn't judge a gay man. I said, more or less, we can't judge his soul-state, but we can judge his actions. If a person is committing same-sex offences then that is grave sin and we are duty bound to point this out to people, in charity, when we have the opportunity.

But I also agree it is easy to fall into sniping which is uncharitable. I am guilty of that at times myself. It is difficult when faced with the provocation that orthodox Catholics are faced with.

To understand this whole 'judgement' thing, this is an excellent article and explains how the dissenters have used people's fear to silence criticism of sinful lifestyles:

http://www.chastitysf.com/judgmental.htm

Silenced by “Diversity”

Now, several verses in the New Testament do warn us against being judgmental; see, for example, Matthew 7:1 (“Stop judging, that you may not be judged”), Luke 6:37 (“Stop judging and you will not be judged”), Romans 14:13 (“Then let us no longer judge one another”), and James 4:12 (“Who then are you to judge your neighbor?”).

Because of these verses, many persons today, especially in our contemporary social climate of political correctness and diversity, claim that it’s “judgmental” to speak about moral values in society or to say anything to defend the faith because someone might feel hurt and offended.

“Don’t be judgmental!” they say. “Who are you to talk? You’re not perfect either!”

Well, rather than be silenced on the spot, let’s ask a couple of questions here: “What does it really mean to judge? And what sort of judging is forbidden to us?”

Go read the whole thing!

SonOfAdam · 03-08-2010 1:27pm

orcanius wrote:

isn't that the protestant bible you quote from?

Well if you prefer here's the RCC approved version - 'though I doubt the meaning is altered between both ...

1 Though I command languages both human and angelic -- if I speak without love, I am no more than a gong booming or a cymbal clashing. 2 And though I have the power of prophecy, to penetrate all mysteries and knowledge, and though I have all the faith necessary to move mountains -- if I am without love, I am nothing. 3 Though I should give away to the poor all that I possess, and even give up my body to be burned -- if I am without love, it will do me no good whatever. 4 Love is always patient and kind; love is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited, 5 it is never rude and never seeks its own advantage, it does not take offence or store up grievances.

... so my point stands - clashing cymbal

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 1:51pm

Bearing in mind this is a Catholic thread, I think it is interesting that we have Protestants posting, essentially telling us to live and let live. This is a further instance of the problem with Protestantism and the incompatibility of that system with Catholicism. Protestantism is essentially about private judgement of Sacred Scripture. it also promotes relativism. Who are you to tell me I'm interpreting Scripture wrong? And who are you to tell me I'm wrong? That's relativism and indifference.

The Catholic position is clear - the Magisterium of the Church interprets Scripture without error. So when you get renegade priests, like this trio, doing what they are doing, they must be called out and highlighted as the wolves that they are. For me to call them ravenous wolves is not forbidden judgement - it is precisely what our Bishops should be doing. I'm not judging their soul state or final destination (though I would warn them that their souls are in grave danger, which is a warning, not a judgement). I am saying 'Look! There is a wolf!' This is the charitable and loving thing to do.

If you want to dispute this, then take it to the megathread. :pac:

JimiTime · 03-08-2010 2:29pm

The Smurf wrote: »

Bearing in mind this is a Catholic thread,

If it is for catholics only, then there should be a request in the thread title. As there isn't one, then this is a discussion on the Christianity forum, pertaining to a Catholic issue.

I think it is interesting that we have Protestants posting, essentially telling us to live and let live.

One person, who hasn't said what they are, hardly counts as Protestants does it?

This is a further instance of the problem with Protestantism and the incompatibility of that system with Catholicism. Protestantism is essentially about private judgement of Sacred Scripture. it also promotes relativism. Who are you to tell me I'm interpreting Scripture wrong? And who are you to tell me I'm wrong? That's relativism and indifference.

An ignorant sweeping generalisation if I ever seen one.

The Catholic position is clear - the Magisterium of the Church interprets Scripture without error. So when you get renegade priests, like this trio, doing what they are doing, they must be called out and highlighted as the wolves that they are. For me to call them ravenous wolves is not forbidden judgement - it is precisely what our Bishops should be doing. I'm not judging their soul state or final destination (though I would warn them that their souls are in grave danger, which is a warning, not a judgement). I am saying 'Look! There is a wolf!' This is the charitable and loving thing to do.

If you want to dispute this, then take it to the megathread. :pac:

I personally have no interest in debating this. I will say this though, moral relativism is certainly NOT part of any bible based church I've ever seen. Talk to our own Wolfsbane, and you'll be left in no doubt about that. Heck, you can talk to me.
As for using judgement

1 Corinthians 5
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

I think its quite clear that we are called to judge within our juristiction. So a Bishop/pastor/minister/council etc has a responsibility to the flock, to indeed use their judgement within the congregation.

prinz · 03-08-2010 2:50pm

I respect what they are doing. The RCC is floundering because the was a custom of not daring to question authority/your superior. This paved the way for the abuse and cover up. Priests were terrified of going against the word of a bishop and so on up the line IMO, even terrified of discussing matters with each other for fear of other priests reporting back to their bishops/cardinals. Really unhealthy. I think it's a great idea for priests to have some place to discuss issues/get help/etc.

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 2:55pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Well if you prefer here's the RCC approved version - 'though I doubt the meaning is altered between both ...

1 Though I command languages both human and angelic -- if I speak without love, I am no more than a gong booming or a cymbal clashing. 2 And though I have the power of prophecy, to penetrate all mysteries and knowledge, and though I have all the faith necessary to move mountains -- if I am without love, I am nothing. 3 Though I should give away to the poor all that I possess, and even give up my body to be burned -- if I am without love, it will do me no good whatever. 4 Love is always patient and kind; love is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited, 5 it is never rude and never seeks its own advantage, it does not take offence or store up grievances.

... so my point stands - clashing cymbal

Actually, it's not a point at all. It's a criticism. One with weak legs. Your misinterpretation of scripture is very telling. Trying to spin things to suit a personal agenda? I've seen it all before. And, you have contributed nothing about the content of the program, or about the Association of Catholic Priests. Therefore, as has already been pointed out, kindly take it over to the megathread.

Tell me: do you think we should judge thieves, adulterers, murderers and rapists? Or should we let them roam free until God judges them? All sinners (including homosexual persons and those who have promoted great heresies in their time) are welcome to receive Holy Communion: so long as they repent their sins.

This association of priests is unnecessary and does not serve God's mission in any way.

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 2:55pm

prinz wrote: »

I respect what they are doing. The RCC is floundering because the was a custom of not daring to question authority/your superior. This paved the way for the abuse and cover up. Priests were terrified of going against the word of a bishop and so on up the line IMO, even terrified of discussing matters with each other for fear of other priests reporting back to their bishops/cardinals. Really unhealthy. I think it's a great idea for priests to have some place to discuss issues/get help/etc.

You should read Vincent Twomey's book on the subject (The End of Irish Catholicism?). He addresses many of the problems within the Church in Ireland.

One of the problems is as you've highlighted, the lack of knowledge and study of the faith, and the inability to articulate it to others.

However, getting a few modernist priests who reject the Catholic Faith and seek to mislead other priests in the same, is not to be welcomed. This group should be suppressed, if that is possible. Of course that won't happen. What they are doing is evil, there can be no doubt about that.

orcanius. · 03-08-2010 3:02pm

prinz wrote: »

I respect what they are doing. The RCC is floundering because the was a custom of not daring to question authority/your superior. This paved the way for the abuse and cover up. Priests were terrified of going against the word of a bishop and so on up the line IMO, even terrified of discussing matters with each other for fear of other priests reporting back to their bishops/cardinals. Really unhealthy. I think it's a great idea for priests to have some place to discuss issues/get help/etc.

Priests have always had the ability to raise an issue they have with their parish priest. If that's not successful, they can write to the bishop. Failing that, they can go to Rome. You use a lot of emotive language: can you please give an example of how "not daring to question authority" "paved the way for abuse and cover up"? Methinks you've been reading too much Sunday Independent over the last 15 years.

I suppose you're against all hierarchical structures (such as armies, private companies, etc.) too? Or is it just the hierarchy of the Church that you want to break down? Hierarchies exist for a reason. The Church is a global entity with over a billion people to manage. No structure is perfect, but one thing's for sure, the Church has been around this long for a reason.

Also, are you a practicing Catholic?

SonOfAdam · 03-08-2010 3:10pm

the smurf wrote:

I think it is interesting that we have Protestants posting, essentially telling us to live and let live

I think it's interesting that you got that from my post. I was simply pointing out that those who profess Jesus, be they catholic or 'protestant' are called to love their neighbours as themselves. That that neighbour is an undesirable (and I guess a gay man might fit that description for you) or a bishop - the same commandment applies. That is not My interpretation, it is simply so.

the smurf wrote:

If you want to dispute this, then take it to the megathread

As I'm not disputing anything (see above), I'll decline your offer, thanks

prinz · 03-08-2010 3:19pm

orcanius. wrote: »

Priests have always had the ability to raise an issue they have with their parish priest. If that's not successful, they can write to the bishop. Failing that, they can go to Rome. You use a lot of emotive language: can you please give an example of how "not daring to question authority" "paved the way for abuse and cover up"? Methinks you've been reading too much Sunday Independent over the last 15 years.

So if they have an issue with say their bishop they can write to their bishop? If they have an issue with how something was dealt with by Rome, they can go to Rome? Cardinal Brady's dealings in the Smyth case is a perfect example. Sure he was only a priest what could he do? He left it up to the Bishop, Bishop knows best. Perhaps if he had of had a representative (outside of the direct chain of command) to go and discuss these things with abuse would have come to light earlier and more lives saved. IIRC Cardinal Daly also gave the excuse of 'following orders'. There needs to be some forum for priests to air grievances and concerns without fear of retribution.

orcanius. wrote: »

I suppose you're against all hierarchical structures (such as armies, private companies, etc.) too? Or is it just the hierarchy of the Church that you want to break down? Hierarchies exist for a reason. The Church is a global entity with over a billion people to manage. No structure is perfect, but one thing's for sure, the Church has been around this long for a reason.

No, I'm not. I am not against a hierarchical structure within the RCC either. In my own employer I know I can approach my direct superior with an issue, I also know that if the issue is with this superior I can approach others (reps etc) who can approach management on my behalf, who can intercede in problems, if I believe my superior has acted unethically I can approach somebody else etc. You need to have that kind of checks and balances system, direct line structures are wide open to abuse.

orcanius. wrote: »

Also, are you a practicing Catholic?

I wouldn't consider myself one.

Howitz · 03-08-2010 3:37pm

prinz wrote: »

I wouldn't consider myself one.

Yet you feel yourself adequately qualified to opine on its internal running. I wonder do you have such a fetish for your local golf club?

No doubt you'll want the bells and whistles of a catholic funeral. Probably march up for communion in your Sunday best at weddings/baptisms/Easter/Christmas too.

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 3:41pm

Howitz wrote: »

Yet you feel yourself adequately qualified to opine on its internal running. I wonder do you have such a fetish for your local golf club?

No doubt you'll want the catholic funeral and march up for communion at weddings/baptisms/Easter/Christmas Masses.

I agree about the golf club concept.

I know nothing about geology or petro-chemical industry, and so I wouldn't go presenting myself to BP to advise them on what they are doing wrong and how to improve. Yet some people, who are ignorant of their faith (like the gay man in Would you believe?, who admitted a lot of this stuff went over his head) propose to advise the Church on what it is doing wrong, how to improve, and point out the 'bad theology' and how this or that teaching is wrong... This is insane.

What we need is strong, orthodox leadership from Holy Bishops, true physicians of the soul. At the minute we have the inmates of the asylum demanding to run the asylum (the Church being a hospital for sinners!).

SonOfAdam wrote: »

I think it's interesting that you got that from my post. I was simply pointing out that those who profess Jesus, be they catholic or 'protestant' are called to love their neighbours as themselves. That that neighbour is an undesirable (and I guess a gay man might fit that description for you) or a bishop - the same commandment applies. That is not My interpretation, it is simply so.

As I'm not disputing anything (see above), I'll decline your offer, thanks

I don't think I ever mentioned the word undesirable.

It does no favours to a 'gay' man to tell him that what his doing is fine with the Divine Majesty, when it is not. If you love someone, you present to them the truth that will set them free; you don't confirm them in their ignorance and sin. To do that is not charity, it is cruelty. Anyone who does this should be exposed, with a cry of ''Here! Here is the wolf!'' That is what a good shepherd does. A bad shepherd lets the wolves savage the sheep. I think a lot of sheeps and lambs have been savaged in Ireland over the last 40 or so years, at least.

prinz · 03-08-2010 3:46pm

Howitz wrote: »

Yet you feel yourself adequately qualified to opine on its internal running. I wonder do you have such a fetish for your local golf club?

I can opine on anything I feel like on these boards as it happens.

Howitz wrote: »

No doubt you'll want the bells and whistles of a catholic funeral. Probably march up for communion in your Sunday best at weddings/baptisms/Easter/Christmas too.

Actually I attend Catholic mass weekly at present and I might one day consider myself a practising Catholic again.

Fanny Cradock · 03-08-2010 4:24pm

Howitz wrote: »

Yet you feel yourself adequately qualified to opine on its internal running. I wonder do you have such a fetish for your local golf club?

No doubt you'll want the bells and whistles of a catholic funeral. Probably march up for communion in your Sunday best at weddings/baptisms/Easter/Christmas too.

Stop re-regeg, Cantab.. It is pathetic. Site banned yet again.

SonOfAdam · 03-08-2010 4:34pm

the smurf wrote:

It does no favours to a 'gay' man to tell him that what his doing is fine with the Divine Majesty, when it is not

.. And I didn't say this. However, it is for the Holy Spirit to convict that person, it is not your business - gentle persuasion is one thing, denouncing quite another.

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 4:44pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

.. And I didn't say this. However, it is for the Holy Spirit to convict that person, it is not your business - gentle persuasion is one thing, denouncing quite another.

Actually, it is one of the spiritual works of mercy, to admonish the sinner. How do I know I have sinned, if I do not know what sin is? Who will tell me? Where is my brother?

St. Augustine writes,

“Medicinal rebuke must be applied to all who sin, lest they should either themselves perish, or be the ruin of others… Let no one, therefore, say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, or that his return and perseverance must only be asked from the Lord for him.”

Here is what the Scripture says about brotherly correction:

"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him” (Leviticus 19:17).

“He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20).

Jesus - “If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him” (Luke 17:3).

“Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear” (1 Timothy 5:20).

“Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2).

“Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Galatians 6:1).

It is a grace from God to be corrected, a grace that should be thankfully and humbly accepted the moment it is offered to us. "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsels" (Proverbs 12:15).

SonOfAdam · 03-08-2010 5:15pm

As I said .. gentle persuasion

The Smurf · 03-08-2010 5:30pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

As I said .. gentle persuasion

I never advocated whacking people over the head with Bibles or Encyclicals. Or even smacking them up the mouth with the Catechism.

The truth can be used as a weapon.

But if we look to that programme, that (gay) man was not offered the Gospel truth. If anything, he was sort-of given an apology for the Church teachings by Bishop Kirby... for what, exactly? That was an opportunity to present the liberating message of Jesus Christ lost. Oh well.

SonOfAdam · 04-08-2010 9:46am

the smurf wrote:

But if we look to that programme, that (gay) man was not offered the Gospel truth. If anything, he was sort-of given an apology for the Church teachings by Bishop Kirby... for what, exactly? That was an opportunity to present the liberating message of Jesus Christ lost. Oh well

Agreed ..... but isn't that the issue that threads pertaining to catholic / 'protestant' disagreements hangs on - the Gospel as offered by the RCC and the Gospel as offered by others ?

The Smurf · 04-08-2010 4:57pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Agreed ..... but isn't that the issue that threads pertaining to catholic / 'protestant' disagreements hangs on - the Gospel as offered by the RCC and the Gospel as offered by others ?

The Catholic Church offers the Gospel in its entirety, whereas the various Protestant groups offer a distorted and deficient version of the Gospel, a Gospel deprived of the greatest gift of God - the Blessed Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ Himself. Nonetheless they do have elements of sanctification, gifts which belong to the Church of Christ.

As Vatican II put it,

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

- LUMEN GENTIUM, paragraph 8

To gain an understanding these issues, I suggest you visit the website in my signature entitled 'Chastity - In San Francisco'. It's probably the best modern synthesis of the Catholic Faith I've ever come across. Of particular relevance to this topic are the pages devoted to 'Tradition' and 'Heresy'. They can be found via the search facility on the site.

JimiTime · 04-08-2010 5:01pm

The Smurf wrote: »

The Catholic Church offers the Gospel in its entirety, whereas the various Protestant groups offer a distorted and deficient version of the Gospel, a Gospel deprived of the greatest gift of God - the Blessed Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ Himself. Nonetheless they do have elements of sanctification, gifts which belong to the Church of Christ.

Except that the above is just an opinion. An opinion/interpretation of a large body of men. I know you like to present it as a given, but it is merely your opinion on the opinion of someone else.

yutta · 05-08-2010 2:52pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Except that the above is just an opinion. An opinion/interpretation of a large body of men. I know you like to present it as a given, but it is merely your opinion on the opinion of someone else.

An opinion that's much closer to Rome than some of the stuff that was spouted out on that RTE program 2 weeks ago. I honestly think the people who went on that show to publicly convey their opinions haven't got a clue about even the most basic Catholic tenets. If they did rudimentary research, they'd soon find another Christian denomination to accommodate their vices. But it's not about the true message of Jesus Christ and supporting the defenders of the Faith, it's about them.

SonOfAdam · 05-08-2010 3:18pm

yutta wrote:

If they did rudimentary research, they'd soon find another Christian denomination to accommodate their vices

Really ? And what would that be ?

The Smurf · 05-08-2010 6:02pm

I'm not much of a fan of The Irish Catholic, but this week David Quinn rips to absolute shreds the pack of wolves group aka the new dissidents priest's association. There are also a stream of letters from Catholics about this ridiculous nonsense.

He makes the point that what these men want is to enforce the failed liberal Protestantism agenda on the Catholic Church. It would be a lot simpler for these wolves to leave the Catholic Church. A letter writer makes a point I've thought myself, and that is that these men probably already have left the Church with their blatant heresy and apostasy.

As Pope John Paul II said - the laity are the sleeping giant of the Catholic Church . It looks like that giant is just waking up!

The article is, unfortunately, not on The Irish Catholic website.

The Smurf · 05-08-2010 6:08pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Really ? And what would that be ?

Any of the plethora of Protestant sects - it is not like there's a shortage of choices. You want gay sex and Christianity? Become an Anglican/Episcopalian. You want to hate your fellow man and be a Christian - join Westboro Baptist Church. You want gay union blessings? No problem - join the Unitarian Universalists. You want abortion? No problem - there is a 'Christian' church just for you!

There are at least 30,000 different choices to be made, so if the Catholic Church doesn't suit, there are any number of options.

The bit that I don't get is why oh why do the dissident 'Catholics' not take themselves off to one of these sects or set up their own. What part of 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' do they not understand?

SonOfAdam · 05-08-2010 6:17pm

You are mixing up christianity with denominations - a common occurence on these threads - as antiskeptic pointed out there are 2 types of christian ; self declared and god declared. Do you seriously believe that ALL catholics who go to mass once a week are christians ? No ? then not all these are either.

yutta · 05-08-2010 7:34pm

The Smurf wrote: »

I'm not much of a fan of The Irish Catholic, but this week David Quinn rips to absolute shreds the pack of wolves group aka the new dissidents priest's association. There are also a stream of letters from Catholics about this ridiculous nonsense.

He makes the point that what these men want is to enforce the failed liberal Protestantism agenda on the Catholic Church. It would be a lot simpler for these wolves to leave the Catholic Church. A letter writer makes a point I've thought myself, and that is that these men probably already have left the Church with their blatant heresy and apostasy.

As Pope John Paul II said - the laity are the sleeping giant of the Catholic Church . It looks like that giant is just waking up!

The article is, unfortunately, not on The Irish Catholic website.

I look forward to reading that.

Although there was a chap (deputy/sub-Editor from the Irish Catholic -- can't remember) in the audience of that program who was going along with all the rubbish that was being spouted. Perhaps he was a victim of group-think. After all, there was a Catholic Bishop sitting in that studio nodding away, so you could easily be lead to think that everything was hunky dory.

I'm really looking foward to the Brandsma Review's take on things.

yutta · 05-08-2010 7:36pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

You are mixing up christianity with denominations - a common occurence on these threads - as antiskeptic pointed out there are 2 types of christian ; self declared and god declared. Do you seriously believe that ALL catholics who go to mass once a week are christians ? No ? then not all these are either.

Mmm.

The Smurf · 05-08-2010 11:40pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

You are mixing up christianity with denominations - a common occurence on these threads - as antiskeptic pointed out there are 2 types of christian ; self declared and god declared. Do you seriously believe that ALL catholics who go to mass once a week are christians ? No ? then not all these are either.

No - the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. It is not a denomination. If you want to discuss this further, you can take it to the megathread. This is about the Association of Dissident Priests.

Only God knows for certain who is in His grace. Not all Catholics at Mass are in a state of grace and many make sacrilegious Holy Communions. Not all Catholics are part of the Mystical Body of Christ, yet they are still 'Catholics', for what that's worth. If you want to discuss this further, you can take it to the megathread.

The groups that splintered off from the Catholic Church have elements of sanctification within them (to a greater or lesser extent, from merely possessing most of the Word of God and a valid baptism, to the full set of Sacraments, whilst lacking that union with the Successor of Peter which is vital for Catholicity) that belong to the treasury of the Catholic Church.

yutta wrote: »

I look forward to reading that.

Although there was a chap (deputy/sub-Editor from the Irish Catholic -- can't remember) in the audience of that program who was going along with all the rubbish that was being spouted. Perhaps he was a victim of group-think. After all, there was a Catholic Bishop sitting in that studio nodding away, so you could easily be lead to think that everything was hunky dory.

I'm really looking foward to the Brandsma Review's take on things.

Michael Kelly. Sometimes he comes out with good stuff, especially recently in terms of sticking up for the Church, but as you said on that occasion he was very poor.

Graces7 · 07-01-2011 4:48pm

prinz wrote: »

I respect what they are doing. The RCC is floundering because the was a custom of not daring to question authority/your superior. This paved the way for the abuse and cover up. Priests were terrified of going against the word of a bishop and so on up the line IMO, even terrified of discussing matters with each other for fear of other priests reporting back to their bishops/cardinals. Really unhealthy. I think it's a great idea for priests to have some place to discuss issues/get help/etc.

(Dropped in as the phrase " dissident priests " caught my eye; have been commissioned to work a paper on this theme.)

Saddened by some of our fellow-catholics here.

re the words I have highlighted.
Actually the opposite is true.

Every priest vows Holy Obedience to his Bishop. he does so freely and fully. It is not the secular idea of not daring to challenge. It is a sacred Vow.

This is not SPIRITUALLY unhealthy in any way. Many priests in the recent past have challenged without disobeying. Many have then left the Church in Ireland.

Holy Obedience is the most misunderstood of all the Vows; and has the potential to be most abused of course, by bad Bishops.. who of course were once priests.
When used and lived, it has a sacredness and a beauty and a holiness, based as it is on the "fiat" of Mary and the obedience of Our Lord to His Father in the Garden before the crucifixion.

The real tragedy here is that it has lost all meaning. All holiness has gone and this is what this bombastic and unholy group reflects.

The only thing that would save the Catholic Church in Ireland would have been a group of holy bishops and a following of "holy and humble men of heart" returning to Holy Obedience to gospel values.. obedience to the Lord Jesus.

The whole thing has become corrupted and worldly.

May I before I go on my way now apologise for some of the posts here? They do not, believe me, reflect the values and awareness of many of us who are loyal and good Catholics and who see the wrongs done and are shamed by them? No pride in this now; no hubris.

I am aware that there may be reaction to this post; that is fine as I am too busy to return here.. Thank you for the additional insights given on this thread which have deepened my research considerably.

Would love to see that article; is it online anywhere, please?

Thank you.

prinz · 07-01-2011 5:01pm

Graces7 wrote: »

....re the words I have highlighted.
Actually the opposite is true.

Holy Obedience is the most misunderstood of all the Vows; and has the potential to be most abused of course, by bad Bishops.. who of course were once priests..

You claim the opposite was true and yet also acknowledge the potential for abuse. It was abused. Many times. In the reports there are a lot of examples of priests raising concerns and being basically told to 'mind their own business' by superiors.

Vows of spiritual obedience is one thing. Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others because your bishop tells you to is something else, sacred vow or not. Sacred vows aren't worth the paper they are written on or the breath they are spoken with if you invoke them to facilitate something like the sexual and physical abuse of children.

JonJoeDali · 07-01-2011 5:31pm

These renegade priests would be better off teaching the catechism of the catholic church to school children in their parish instead of wasting time on this bureaucracy.

By participating in this faction, they're giving up all hope of promotion and are doomed to see out their careers on craggy island.

ubertrad · 07-01-2011 11:03pm

JonJoeDali wrote: »

These renegade priests would be better off teaching the catechism of the catholic church to school children in their parish instead of wasting time on this bureaucracy.

By participating in this faction, they're giving up all hope of promotion and are doomed to see out their careers on craggy island.

I don't think they agree with the Catechism.

Incidentally I have been posting comments over on their official website. A little bird told me that they selectively approve comments posted on their website.

I left this one on their website just now:

If the Anglican converts have to sign on the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a profession of the Catholic faith, then why not the members of the ACP? And not just the ACP, but the entire priesthood and episcopate of Ireland. Surely that would sort the wheat from the chaff? At least then everyone would know where everyone else stands!! Then the ACP can form their own Irish National Church and the Catholics can get on with their own work of evangelisation, renewal, and restoration. As it is, we are all just stalling. You know it’s true!

PDN · 07-01-2011 11:06pm

JonJoeDali wrote: »

By participating in this faction, they're giving up all hope of promotion

Then my respect for them increases. The Church needs people who will act according to their principles instead of worrying what will help them climb the greasy pole of ecclesiastical ambition.

ubertrad · 07-01-2011 11:15pm

PDN wrote: »

Then my respect for them increases. The Church needs people who will act according to their principles instead of worrying what will help them climb the greasy pole of ecclesiastical ambition.

These guys dumped the Catholic principals and came up with their own. They want to condone sins and they want to reject the faith of the Catholic Church. These guys have a hell of a lot less integrity than any of the Protestant so-called Reformers. At least they had the intellectual honesty and realism to leave and found their own ecclesial communities, whereas these men want to introduce their heresy into the Church directly. They are filled with pride but are actually quite dumb. They have no knowledge of Church history for if they had, they'd see that the heretics never prevail. Take your pick: Albigensians, Donatists, Montanists, Docetists, Catharists - they all are left behind in the annals of history! This movement probably won't even register in the history books, at least not this little grouping of that heresy we call Modernism.

Association of Catholic Priests

Comments