The CC in Ireland.

gimmebroadband

I believe it's time to hand over the reins to responsible bishops who are fearless in cleaning up the CC, especially here in Ireland. I found the following article interesting.

---

"George Weigel writes on National Review Online, “something quite remarkable has become unmistakably clear across the Atlantic: Ireland—where the constitution begins, ‘In the name of the Most Holy Trinity’—has become the most stridently anti-Catholic country in the Western world.”

While he calls the Irish prime minister’s recent anti-Catholic tirade what it is—calumnious—Weigel also acknowledges that the Church in Irelandis in a bad way. He goes so far as to say

Apostolic visitations of the principal Irish dioceses and seminaries have been undertaken, on Vatican orders, by bishops from theUnited States, Canada, and Great Britain; their reports, one understands, have been blunt and unsparing.

What has not happened, and what ought to happen sooner rather than later, is a wholesale replacement of the Irish hierarchy, coupled with a dramatic reduction in the number of Irish dioceses…. The Vatican, not ordinarily given to dramatic change, might well consider clearing the Irish bench comprehensively and bringing in bishops, of whatever national origin, who can rebuild the Irish Church by preaching the Gospel without compromise—and who know how to fight the soft totalitarianism of European secularists."

more....


http://blog.acton.org/archives/25154-what-ireland-has-lost-and-how-it-can-be-regained.html

raymon

I agree , but why stop with bishops.

Why not fire / expel / defrock all levels of clergy tainted by any scandal .


Time to sort the wheat from the chaff

georgieporgy

raymon wrote: »

I agree , but why stop with bishops.

Why not fire / expel / defrock all levels of clergy tainted by any scandal .


Time to sort the wheat from the chaff

Rest easy. They are doing just that. Luckily only a tiny number are tainted . Many observers however are easily scandalised, which is a different matter entirely.

And we have Our Lord's instruction in scripture "do not be scandalised".

raymon

georgieporgy wrote: »

Rest easy. They are doing just that. Luckily only a tiny number are tainted . Many observers however are easily scandalised, which is a different matter entirely.

And we have Our Lord's instruction in scripture "do not be scandalised".

This is where we disagree !

It is a scandal . It is scandalous . I am scandalised

Raping children is a scandal .

Also please do not quote the bible out of context. That quote has nothing to do with child rape . The devil himself could quote the bible out of context so please refrain from doing so

PDN

Moderator's Note

We already have a Clerical Child Abuse thread. Let's not create another one!

raymon

georgieporgy wrote: »

Rest easy. They are doing just that

You say they are doing just that.

Please provide examples.

georgieporgy

I think further study is needed on the subject of scandal.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm

In short; it is scandal to commit sin and induce/cause another to do likewise, thereby causing the moral ruination of the the other individual.

Examples would be enticing someone to commit adultery, rape etc.

Theft, lying, sectarian violence, attacking religion, would be other examples.

Scandal is a very serious sin and that is why Jesus said woe to him that gives scandal..... millstone around neck etc. But he also said do not be easily scandalised (ie do not follow the bad example of others and thereby lose your own soul)

raymon

georgieporgy wrote: »

I think further study is needed on the subject of scandal.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm

In short; it is scandal to commit sin and induce/cause another to do likewise, thereby causing the moral ruination of the the other individual.

Examples would be enticing someone to commit adultery, rape etc.

Theft, lying, sectarian violence, attacking religion, would be other examples.

Scandal is a very serious sin and that is why Jesus said woe to him that gives scandal..... millstone around neck etc. But he also said do not be easily scandalised (ie do not follow the bad example of others and thereby lose your own soul)

You are incorrect. This religious text that you provided is unhelpful.

Here is one definition from a real dictionary
noun
an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage:a bribery scandal involving one of his key supporters[mass noun] the outrage or anger caused by a scandalous action or event:divorce was cause for scandal in the island[mass noun] rumour or malicious gossip about scandalous events or actions:I know that you would want no scandal attached to her name[in singular] a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger:it's a scandal that many older patients are dismissed as untreatable

Can you provide examples of the improvements the church has enacted when you said " rest easy, they are doing just that." referring to some kind of reform.

( quoting the bible / religious texts is not necessary in your reply )

Monty.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

What has not happened, and what ought to happen sooner rather than later, is a wholesale replacement of the Irish hierarchy

This needs to be a lot more specific. The Church (and that means ALL Catholics) first and foremost need to deal with Cardinals Sodano, Bertone and Law. Sodano and Bertone together are now the most powerful cardinals in Rome, and in my opinion, they are very bad news, and the source of many of the Churches current problems. I'd advise everyone with a genuine interest in this subject, and especially Catholics, to do some research about Cardinals Sodano, Bertone, and Law

Although errant Priests have been defrocked and forced to stand down, errant Bishops or Cardinals have not. This needs to the first thing to sort out. The Church (and that means all Catholics) is still not ruthless enough with errant Bishops and Cardinals. They have learned nothing from the scandals with the Priests. It's high time all Catholics started demanding action with regard to the errant Cardinals and Bishops who refuse to stand down like Brady

georgieporgy

raymon wrote: »

You say they are doing just that.

Please provide examples.

if you haven't already read the pope's letter please take time to do it now.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

Monty.

georgieporgy wrote: »

Many observers however are easily scandalised, which is a different matter entirely.

That is not an excuse to sit on your arse hoping it all blows over and sorts itself out.

I want something permanent done NOW about Cardinals like Sodano, Bertone and Law. Together they are the most powerful men in the Church and they need to be stopped.

I want something permanent done NOW about Irish Bishops like Brady and Magee.

And it's high time all decent Catholics started demanding the same thing, not sitting on their cowardly arses waiting for it to blow over.

Baggio1

i have to admit the bishops need to be cleaned out,, they are just so weak and cowardly in both dealing with the whole scandal and also in speaking out on behalf of the faithful and the faith itself....

so on BOTH counts they should ALLL resign and make way for better men to do the job

Omentum

Baggio1 wrote: »

so on BOTH counts they should ALLL resign and make way for better men to do the job

How do you guarantee they will be any better. Why do you need Bishops at all?

gimmebroadband

Omentum wrote: »

How do you guarantee they will be any better. Why do you need Bishops at all?

We need bishops to ordain priests, priests can't ordain themselves!! :rolleyes:

Graces7

georgieporgy wrote: »

Rest easy. They are doing just that. Luckily only a tiny number are tainted . Many observers however are easily scandalised, which is a different matter entirely.

And we have Our Lord's instruction in scripture "do not be scandalised".

Same old spin; same old untruths.

Which is why this will never get cleansed.

Omentum

gimmebroadband wrote: »

We need bishops to ordain priests, priests can't ordain themselves!! :rolleyes:

Maybe you should rethink the whole thing tbh. Not your faith, but the hierarchy.

goose2005

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The Vatican, not ordinarily given to dramatic change, might well consider clearing the Irish bench comprehensively and bringing in bishops, of whatever national origin, who can rebuild the Irish Church by preaching the Gospel without compromise—and who know how to fight the soft totalitarianism of European secularists."

As always, maintenance of power and privilege comes first. Not to mention that "soft totalitarianism" is an oxymoron. And given that totalitarianism is defined as "recognising no limits to its authority and striving to regulate every aspect of public and private life" - I think we know who the totalitarians are.

raymon

georgieporgy wrote: »

if you haven't already read the pope's letter please take time to do it now.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

You are joking right ? This letter says nothing of substance . Words words words

raymon

gimmebroadband wrote: »

We need bishops to ordain priests, priests can't ordain themselves!! :rolleyes:

When did Jesus say that ????
I must have missed that sermon

gimmebroadband

raymon wrote: »

When did Jesus say that ????
I must have missed that sermon

You must have!!

Omentum

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You must have!!

Jesus never said that....

raymon

Omentum wrote: »

Jesus never said that....

When did Jesus say : We need bishops to ordain priests, priests can't ordain themselves!!

alex73

raymon wrote: »

When did Jesus say : We need bishops to ordain priests, priests can't ordain themselves!!

The Catholic church is an apostolic church.

raymon

alex73 wrote: »

The Catholic church is an apostolic church.

Jesus had only one level of apostles. Not a multi tiered hierarchy of power and man made laws.

What would Jesus think if he saw the organisational chart ? He would be outraged

So please tell me. What does a multi tiered power structure have to do with Jesus ?
All priests are bishops, cardinals, canons in Jesus eyes surely

alex73

raymon wrote: »

Jesus had only one level of apostles. Not a multi tiered hierarchy of power and man made laws.

What would Jesus think if he saw the organisational chart ? He would be outraged

So please tell me. What does a multi tiered power structure have to do with Jesus ?
All priests are bishops, cardinals, canons in Jesus eyes surely

It goes back to the early days of the church, so nobody is going to change it, its not how structured the church is that matters, its how trully we commit our lives to christ

gimmebroadband

raymon wrote: »

Jesus had only one level of apostles. Not a multi tiered hierarchy of power and man made laws.

What would Jesus think if he saw the organisational chart ? He would be outraged

So please tell me. What does a multi tiered power structure have to do with Jesus ?
All priests are bishops, cardinals, canons in Jesus eyes surely

Jesus started the ball rolling with the Apostles, who he ordained the first priests at the last supper!
http://olrl.org/Lessons/Lesson28.shtml

alex73

Good link.

georgieporgy

raymon wrote: »

When did Jesus say : We need bishops to ordain priests, priests can't ordain themselves!!

approximately 10.30 pm Thursday 7th april 33AD.

raymon

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus started the ball rolling with the Apostles, who he ordained the first priests at the last supper!
http://olrl.org/Lessons/Lesson28.shtml

Again your link is of no value to the question. It does not contain the answer

When did Jesus say that bishops had exclusive license to ordain?

All of the apostles were priests. Bishops , canons, cardinals etc etc did not exist

It was after the death of Jesus that his followers started to form these hierarchical structures.

alex73

What church do you belong to?

raymon

alex73 wrote: »

What church do you belong to?

I was baptised catholic.

However every week I am realising that the catholic church may have lost its way entirely centuries ago

I have stopped going to mass etc

I believe St Francis may have been on the right track , but overall I am disappointed and let down by the catholic church

raymon

To answer your question I currently belong to no church or congregation

Son Of A Vidic

Perhaps the Vatican should carry out some 'spring cleaning' of their own house while they're sorting out the Irish.

Son Of A Vidic

raymon wrote: »

Jesus had only one level of apostles. Not a multi tiered hierarchy of power and man made laws.

What would Jesus think if he saw the organisational chart ? He would be outraged

So please tell me. What does a multi tiered power structure have to do with Jesus ?
All priests are bishops, cardinals, canons in Jesus eyes surely

Very true indeed, a man-made, militarised ranking structure which has more in common with the Roman Empire it replaced than with Jesus.

gimmebroadband

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Very true indeed, a man-made, militarised ranking structure which has more in common with the Roman Empire it replaced than with Jesus.

When Jesus established His Church, Jesus placed the Apostles in charge of caring for the faithful, of teaching them the faith and caring for their souls. And He placed Peter at the head of the Apostles. Through Apostolic Succession, that same hierarchy willed by Jesus, exists today in the Church with the Pope (the successor of St Peter) at her head, leading the Bishops (the successors of the Apostles) who themselves lead the faithful in their local Churches.

A cardinal is a bishop, a monsignor is a priest etc., all just titles!

http://www.catholic-pages.com/church/hierarchy.asp

Even the angels in heaven have a hierarchy - 9 different levels called choirs.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/anglchoi.php

raymon

I

gimmebroadband wrote: »

When Jesus established His Church, Jesus placed the Apostles in charge of caring for the faithful, of teaching them the faith and caring for their souls. And He placed Peter at the head of the Apostles. Through Apostolic Succession, that same hierarchy willed by Jesus, exists today in the Church with the Pope (the successor of St Peter) at her head, leading the Bishops (the successors of the Apostles) who themselves lead the faithful in their local Churches.

A cardinal is a bishop, a monsignor is a priest etc., all just titles!

http://www.catholic-pages.com/church/hierarchy.asp

Even the angels in heaven have a hierarchy - 9 different levels called choirs.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/anglchoi.php

I'm not disputing the hierarchy of angels . I'm sure the have a very workable and efficient organisation.

What I was disputing was that only bishops should ordain priests. I don't believe that Jesus signed off on that !



I may have brought the thread off topic so feel free to get back on track

gimmebroadband

raymon wrote: »

I

I'm not disputing the hierarchy of angels . I'm sure the have a very workable and efficient organisation.

What I was disputing was that only bishops should ordain priests. I don't believe that Jesus signed off on that !


I may have brought the thread off topic so feel free to get back on track

Tradition was the norm before the canon of the bible was put together!
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

JimiTime

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Tradition was the norm before the canon of the bible was put together!
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Yes, and Jesus rubuked their traditions. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, What did Jesus refer to? The Law and the Prophets. He put no emphasis on traditions. He alluded to them being tacked on, rather than them being of value.

georgieporgy

alex73

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, and Jesus rubuked their traditions. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, What did Jesus refer to? The Law and the Prophets. He put no emphasis on traditions. He alluded to them being tacked on, rather than them being of value.

Man is an animal of habits. Jesus let 11 men (+ St Paul) who brought the good news to to Greece, Rome. They passed on they Apostolic mission to other disciples.

They whole Vatican/Cardinal structure, its no essential the the Church, it evolved.

gimmebroadband

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, and Jesus rubuked their traditions. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, What did Jesus refer to? The Law and the Prophets. He put no emphasis on traditions. He alluded to them being tacked on, rather than them being of value.

With no bible, how do you think the early Christians witnessed the faith?

Sacred Tradition is the "oral" teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to his apostles, who in turn handed it down to their disciples (the early Church Fathers), and then to the next generation, and then finally to us.

http://www.catholicbible101.com/sacredtradition.htm

When Jesus rebuked the Pharisee’s it wasn’t because they didn’t understand tradition, but because they didn’t understand the word of God.

http://www.letusreason.org/RC12.htm

Monty.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Perhaps the Vatican should carry out some 'spring cleaning' of their own house while they're sorting out the Irish.

And let's hope they start with Cardinals Sodano, Bertone, and Law. In my opinion they are a very powerful but unholy trinity.

Sodano is the ringleader . . and most worryingly, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, he will also will be in charge of the next's popes election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Sodano

raymon

alex73 wrote: »

Man is an animal of habits. Jesus let 11 men (+ St Paul) who brought the good news to to Greece, Rome. They passed on they Apostolic mission to other disciples.

They whole Vatican/Cardinal structure, its no essential the the Church, it evolved.

Exactly , these hierarchical power structures have nothing to do with Jesus. So I don't see why a bishop is needed to ordain a priest.

Seems to be a mutation, and not a pretty one

alex73

raymon wrote: »

Exactly , these hierarchical power structures have nothing to do with Jesus. So I don't see why a bishop is needed to ordain a priest.

Seems to be a mutation, and not a pretty one

There were always Bishops from the beginning. The apostles passed on the faith to others who were committed to the same faith. Thus apostolic succession is essential. Otherwise any joe could say I am a priest and begin his own church like the mormons did, or j witnes.

raymon

alex73 wrote: »

There were always Bishops from the beginning. The apostles passed on the faith to others who were committed to the same faith. Thus apostolic succession is essential. Otherwise any joe could say I am a priest and begin his own church like the mormons did, or j witnes.

but bishops, despite their palaces, wealth , rings and robes are merely priests are they not

gimmebroadband

raymon wrote: »

but bishops, despite their palaces, wealth , rings and robes are merely priests are they not

Our local bishop drives a tiny car and doesn't live in anything like a palace. Mayors and other dignitary wear chains of office and robes etc.

Monty.

alex73 wrote: »

There were always Bishops from the beginning. The apostles passed on the faith to others who were committed to the same faith. Thus apostolic succession is essential.

The word Bishop means elder/overseer. The oldest written use of the word was by Ignaitus of Antioch (c38-108 AD) (Ordained by James)

"Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, [being united with Him], either by Himself or by the Apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters." — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1.

Peter become Bishop of Rome, Andrew-Bishop of Constantinople, James-First Bishop in Iberia, James-Bishop of Ostrakine, John-Bishop of Ephesus, Philip-first Bishop in Greece, Phrygia, and Syria, Bartholomew – First Bishop in Armenia, Matthew-First Bishop in Judea and later Ethiopia, Thomas-First Bishop in India, Jude-First Bishop of Beirut, Simon-First Bishop of Persia. In turn they appointed sucessors and further Bishops, in turn they appointed further Bishops.

A Bishop is an ordained or consecrated member of the Christian clergy entrusted with a position of authority and oversight. Within the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox Churches, in the Assyrian Church of the East, in the Independent Catholic Churches, and in the Anglican churches, bishops can claim apostolic succession, a direct historical lineage dating back to the original Twelve Apostles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop

JimiTime

gimmebroadband wrote: »

With no bible, how do you think the early Christians witnessed the faith?

Firstly, as Jesus said, they had the law and the Prophets. Secondly, they had the apostles delivering the Good News (Gospel) and the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit, who's a little bit more than some traditions. the Apostles also came to them with the power of the spirit, with great signs etc, again, more than some traditions. Then from very early on, they had numerous letters, some actually trying to put a stop to the beginning of 'traditions' that were out of whack with the Good News. So there was in existence, many witnesses as well as written down, many records of witnesses etc. Canon, merely looked to compile things.

Sacred Tradition is the "oral" teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to his apostles, who in turn handed it down to their disciples (the early Church Fathers), and then to the next generation, and then finally to us.

Again, thats nothing more than a mantra. Fair enough if you believe it, but I'm afraid it doesn't make it true. When the pope or the bishops show the power of the Holy Spirit, then I may change my mind over this false claim. As it stands though, the claim of apostolic succession etc is no more believable than Mohammad or Joseph Smith claiming to be prophets. When these Apostolic successors exhibit the fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit, that go along with apostleship then that will make the claim believable.

When Jesus rebuked the Pharisee’s it wasn’t because they didn’t understand tradition, but because they didn’t understand the word of God.

No, he rebuked them for letting their traditions overtake the word of God. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with traditions, but if you put them on the pedestal you do, then thats when it gets Pharisaical.

gimmebroadband

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, as Jesus said, they had the law and the Prophets. Secondly, they had the apostles delivering the Good News (Gospel) and the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit, who's a little bit more than some traditions. the Apostles also came to them with the power of the spirit, with great signs etc, again, more than some traditions. Then from very early on, they had numerous letters, some actually trying to put a stop to the beginning of 'traditions' that were out of whack with the Good News. So there was in existence, many witnesses as well as written down, many records of witnesses etc. Canon, merely looked to compile things.



Again, thats nothing more than a mantra. Fair enough if you believe it, but I'm afraid it doesn't make it true. When the pope or the bishops show the power of the Holy Spirit, then I may change my mind over this false claim. As it stands though, the claim of apostolic succession etc is no more believable than Mohammad or Joseph Smith claiming to be prophets. When these Apostolic successors exhibit the fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit, that go along with apostleship then that will make the claim believable.



No, he rebuked them for letting their traditions overtake the word of God. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with traditions, but if you put them on the pedestal you do, then thats when it gets Pharisaical.

The Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html