Categories
Uncategorized

MARIOLOGY IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM

Fr Andrew Pinsent Catholic Herald

August 14, 2020 at 8:10 am

As a physicist and a priest, I am sometimes asked how I can accept what the Church teaches about miracles, or revealed doctrines such as the Assumption of Our Lady. My response is always along the lines of “Why not?” Physics is about what happens for the most part to fairly simple systems in nature. But physics has nothing to say about divine actions that exceed the productive power of nature, to use St Thomas Aquinas’s definition of a miracle (Summa Contra Gentiles 3.103; Summa Theologica 1.110, art. 4).

If I catch a falling apple, I interrupt the ordinary course of the laws of physics, so there is no reason to suppose that the omnipotent God cannot also intervene and work a miracle. Contemporary physics has stretched our imaginations dramatically as to what is possible even without special divine intervention. For example, many things can and do co-exist with us without any effect on us, such as the 100 trillion neutrinos travelling through each of us every second. That demonstrates how entire worlds could be close to us even if they are ordinarily inaccessible and unnoticed. So not only are miracles not excluded by physics, but the training and experiences of physicists have acclimatised us to the extraordinary.

What about metaphysics, traditionally understood as those matters left over after the study of physics and other particular subjects?

From this perspective, the main inference (Psalm 15(16):10), which also applies to the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:27), is that it is unfitting for that which is utterly without evil to decay. Since Mary was not only sinless but full of grace (Luke 1:28) and carried God Himself in her womb, it has long been felt as repugnant that her body should decay in the ordinary way.

Our theology teaches, however, that the Assumption is not merely about the preservation of Mary’s body, but that God has raised her body and soul into heaven.

In Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that “… the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven”.

The Holy Father drew on millennia of arguments, the witness of churches and liturgies dedicated to the Assumption, and the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of Mary in the Old Testament, which is described as taken up into heaven (Ps 131:8; Rev 11:19-12:1).

Although Catholicism still regards as open the question of whether or not Mary actually died, some older Catholic practices as well as the Orthodox Churches refer to the Assumption as the “Dormition of the Mother of God.” This gentle term, “Falling Asleep”, underlines that Mary was preserved from the pains of death.

Why, then, does this doctrine matter for us? If by the Ascension, Jesus Christ has become a bridge linking earth and heaven, then the Assumption teaches us that one created human person has already crossed that bridge, body and soul, as a pledge of the future general resurrection.

In addition, Mary’s Assumption reinforces a lesson of the Ascension, namely that the saints are not intended to remain as disembodied souls but to be resurrected into a place, not a mere state, of eternal joy.

PAT SAYS

Traditionally the RCC has gone way OTT when it comes to Mary.

It is interesting to see the piece above connecting Mariology to paganism.

For a Christian GOD is the primary and exclusive focus – particularly God made visible in Jesus.

I do believe there are elements of paganism in the worship of Mary and the saints.

Mary was simply a human being who co-operated freely with God.

She is not and has never being a divine being.

The emphasis on her perpetual virginity is part of an old social and religious hang up and sex and the body.

The New Testament speaks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus and I believe Mary had more children than one.

The dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption were introduced for political reasons. As the pope lost his political powers he tried to introduce new spiritual powers to boost his personage and office.

Its interesting that the RCC does not insist that Mary never died.

If Jesus, who was God had to undergo death, why would Mary, a human being not have to undergo death?

The current new preoccupation with Mary among the traddies – wanting to call her the Co Redemptrixt and the Meaditrixt of all Grace’s is theologically unsound.

There is a lot to be said for thinking of Mary as Saint Mary.

From what we know of her, she herself would not want to be getting in God’s way or placed at the same level as God.

The whole talk of Mary as Queen is pure fantasy.

FATHER PAUL PRIOR

Comment submitted by reader

127 replies on “MARIOLOGY IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM”

I knew that Paul Prior wouldn’t be staying a temporary curate. For decades, old Kitty Drury used to celebrate Christmas Midnight Mass in Paul’s new parish.

It’ll be a right laugh when his new parishoners Google him.

Like

‘If I catch a falling apple, I interrupt the ordinary course of the laws of physics, so there is no reason to suppose that the omnipotent God cannot also intervene and work a miracle.’
What utter nonsense!
A miracle is not halting an event in its tracks, but REVERSING it to a state in which it formerly existed. Like, Christ’s raising the dead, healing the sick, or calming a storm.
If this guy is a physicist, he’s not an intelligent one.

Like

Thank God and his Blessed Mother, Mary that you do not teach in schools or parishes. You teach heresy. Your Oratory is a place of religious and spiritual bankruptcy.

Like

Historically, the Church promoted Mary as a model of chastity and virginity, by which means it shamed those who engaged in normal human sexual relations as moral and spiritual second-class citizens.

If there is heresy here, it lies with the teaching of the Church.

Like

11.08
‘Heretics’? It’s a word people like you love to bandy about: you, and your church.
Don’t you know that the Catholic Church has been teaching heresy for centuries? It has taught against the sanctity of human life, despite its long proclaiming such, by morally approving the killing of people in war, and on the gallows.
Remove the log from your eye, for heaven’s sake!

Like

Bishop Pat writes, ” .. For a Christian GOD is the primary and exclusive focus – particularly God made visible in Jesus … The current new preoccupation with Mary among the traddies – wanting to call her the Co Redemptrixt and the Meaditrix of all Grace’s is theologically unsound … “.
——————————–
Spot on.
When I was a boy there was a priest who’d often tell us that whenever possible we should try to speak of Our Blessed Lord as God The Son rather than as the Son of God. How wise that cleric was.
The Jesus that mot Christians, and most Catholics, believe is the Jesus born of the Father before time began, and of one being with the Father, and through Him all things were made.
The emphasis on Mary has increaed MASSIVELY since Vatican2 and the document Lumen Gentium, It’s never declared openlybut underlying it is Rahner’s postmodernist theology, that Jesus was a purely human Messiah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GtweESpJ8I
The Jesus so many RC priests preach today is a human Son of God; someone very special, but not unique. The Virgin Mary was/is similar (and so were/are Buddha, Mohammed, Padre |Pio and the rest of them.)
Because of that the old idea that ‘Jesus is God, Mary isn’t’ has been thrown in the dustbin, Mary is now the equal of Jesus. A lot of people love that idea, and a lot of people don’t. The churches certainly aren’t empty, they’re only half-empty.

Like

I remember “God The Son”, I always got a lot from that / Him. One slept at night on a sheet like “God The Friendly Holy Ghost” must have worn. My secular primary schools said the same Lord’s Prayer as us.
Obviously Our Lady was big for some people, but apparently purely optional. By JP II time everything had become so intense and full of implying and hinting, I’ve been alternately put off and confused, ever since.

Like

1:34pm
People like you believe that murderers should not be punished, remove that log from your eyes, and get a grip. They don’t believe in the sanctity of human life so they should be sent to the gallows for the heinous crime they committed. Why should the taxpayer including the family of their victim pay for these criminals to be incarcerated for years at our expense, only to be released and probably commit more crimes. Unfortunately life sentences don’t mean life and out they come with social services falling over themselves to help them. No one thinks of their victim or their family’s who have been sentenced to life.

Like

4.00
I did not say that murders should not be punished, nor would I ever do so. But as a Christian, I am bound to follow the teaching of Christ, not a primal urge for revenge.

Like

The real problem with miracles is that they mean God occasionally does things which ‘exceed the productive power of nature’ and the rest of the time doesn’t. This implies that God was happy to have a virgin conceive but can’t be bothered to end slavery by a miracle, end starvation, even end abortion. This God is a monster of arbitrary decisions and not loving in any way. He just divides and pampers his favourites.
Oh, and the religion which follows him is hugely stolen from Roman religion.

Like

In that case, couldn’t God have worked a miracle by having Jesus come down from the Cross, thereby convincing his tormentors gathered there that he really was divine? I suppose he could. He could have saved Jesus and entertained those men. But at what price?

Our redemption.

Like

That is exactly the point I’m making – God could have saved Jesus from the cross at the price of our redemption, redemption from a fate he himself had imposed on us. Incidentally the biblical record has no record of Eve being told about the apple.
He could have stopped the whole thing but didn’t, and remains a capricious monster of whim, at the base of whose religion will always be fear.
If a human behaved like that just because they could, we wouldn’t look on that person at all positively.

Like

10.18
I am the poster at 9.37.
You missed my point.
If I sincerely determine to love (and reckoning this within the moral limitations of human nature), then my choices are limited: I may not choose to this AND wilfully choose to do the opposite. It is the same with God.
God could not choose to have Jesus come down from the Cross, because this, despite its appearance, would not have been an act of love for us. You might argue that it would have been an act of love for Jesus, but this would miss another point: that though only one person of the Trinity died there, so, too, did only one God. And he defined love supremely for us that day: its interest is not its own, but ours. Love that does not sacrifice itself, even to death, is not love, but just its appearance. The Devil is this.
Eve was indeed told which fruit not to eat: the Second Creation Account in Genesis confirms this. (Gen 3: 2 through 3)

Like

Further to my post at 1.05, our fate was not imposed on us by God, but through our nature.
You’ve heard of Shakesperean tragedy? This is humanity: its tragedy, finitely and infinitely, is written into its very nature. Our only chance of escaping it is by God’s grace, won for us on Calvary by Jesus’ refusal to compromise with Evil by saving himself.

Like

Thanks for a considered reply – having read it I don’t think I have missed your point, I think we’re getting at completely different sides of the same point.
My point remains that the whole consequence of our fallen nature and disobedience could have been completely wiped out by God but instead he chose this incredibly sadistic way to do it.
If God could not stop this, he is not omnipotent. If he is omnipotent and did not stop it, he is a monster. Seen from the other side the whole narrative of the fall and redemption is incredibly cruel and capricious.
Neither did humanity’s nature impose this on them.
My point is that if a human acted the way I am depicting a god acting (and I don’t accept your argument that he couldn’t stop it) he does not show himself up very well.
I personally wouldn’t want to have that narrative running through my own faith life or ‘salvation history’ , and for other reasons in addition to the monstrousness of God.

Like

2.29
I’m sure you know that even human love, to be taken as such, is neither entirely whimsical nor arbitrary: it must observe its own protocol; follow its own rules, so to speak.
God is no different from us…in this sense: he has to abide by his own protocol: his own rules. Therefore he cannot, for he may not, act capriciously, nor sentimentally. He, quite literally, is a law unto himself, a broad window on which are the Ten Commandments.
God, observing his own law of love, could no more have removed himself from that cross than a man could truthfully tell his wife that he loved her while having an affair.
God cannot just wipe out the repercussions of our fallen nature, even if we all wanted him to do so (which, clearly, we don’t), since this would not address the fundamental and definitive ontological effect of sin: the vitiation (compromising) of our wills and therefore of our ability to make an absolute and irrevocable committment to God: to desire him with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind. (Luke 10: 27)
Paradoxically, not sadistically, it is only by allowing humanity to suffer the full and horrible weight of its moral infidelity that there is at least a chance that it will finally turn to God, allowing him to tackle its vitiated will by sowing the seed of a desire for union with him that will be irrevocably binding. Biblical history contains examples of this in the experience of painful exile and enslavement of the Jewish people through their faithlessness to God. If I might make a parallel with alcoholic recovery, it has been said, by recovering addicts themselves, that the only chance of recovery an alcoholic has is when he reaches absolute rock bottom in his life. But he must reach that bottom for the chance to exist.

Like

Re God can’t act capricious – that’s exactly what he does!
He has apparently chosen three different peoples as his chosen people, told two of them to circumcise themselves but not the third, and so on.
If God is acting according to its protocols these indicate a strange willingness to interfere in the world at some times but not others. That was my point right at the start and nothing you have said has served to sway me in the slightest.
IMHO the only convincing explanation for God’s on-off interference (e.g. The comments about famine below) would have to be that God does not intervene in the world. In fact the evidence would suggest he is not terribly interested!

Like

9.20
Where does GOD say that he has chosen three separate peoples? Yes, I know what each of these say about God’s choice concerning them, but where does HE confirm any of this Don’t conflate the supremacist claims of some with the will of God. Your anger is blinding you. And your anger, not your reason, is obvious.
God does not act in the world in accordance with your designs, since this would make YOU God.

Like

Of course there are elements of paganism in most if not all religions. People share a common origin and destiny. Thing is 👋 did God invent religion or did religion invent God or is there something in this dialectic we are missing out on . Day of rest G’nite but

Like

No democracy with a majority Catholic population excludes by law a person of any belief from being head of state, unlike the UK, where the head of state specifically cannot be a Catholic or even marry one, but they can be an athiest or believer in anything apart from Catholicism.

Like

The weakness of your argument is of course the words ‘majority Catholic population’. The UK does not have a majority RC population.
It would be hard to envision an RC as head of state in Israel or Iran, for example.
The reality is states frequently have a state religion and the head of state is usually of that religion.
You’re just sore at the Church of England and Rome’s loss of power there.
Get over yourself or else just shut up until a member of the Dutch Reformed Church is state head of Vatican State.

Like

2.21
Such a democracy may not OPENLY exclude from being head of state a person of minority religious belief, but this does not necessarily mean that it never would, nor ever did.
You seem to forget that the British monarch is not just a head of state, but head of the Church of England. Suggesting that this monarchy be open to someone not a member of the Church of England is as preposterous as suggesting that the papacy be open to a non-Roman Catholic.
Where Roman Catholicism has been the dominant faith of a country’s citizens (for example, the Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland), it has sought to influence government through its bishops; this happened, for example, in France under the Ancien Regime, and it happened in the Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland. In the latter, the Roman Catholic bishops early in the Free State’s existence sought a constitutionally privileged place for the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, which Eamon De Valera, the first prime minister of the Irish Free State, wisely refused.
A Roman Catholic is in no position to criticise the Church of England on such matters.

Like

You could have a Muslim, Jewish, Free Presbyterian monarch in the UK, but only Catholics are specifically excluded and discriminated against there. Iran and the Vatican are not democracies. There is no reason, under law, why a Catholic couldn’t be head of state in Israel. Ireland has had a Protestant head of state, in a great act of forgiveness after the centuries of suffering at the hands of the Protestant Ascendancy.

The only state churches in the world are Protestant churches.

Like

6.05
Utterly and risibly wrong on who could become a British monarch. You are totally misinformed.
Roman Catholics were expressly excluded from becoming British monarchs, not least for their violent hostility to the new faith.

Like

@6:27. Catholics only are excluded by the Act of Succession. Athiests and all the others I mentioned are not excluded.
Any of them would be a better head of the “Church of England” than serial adulterer Charles.

Like

7..05

Re-read my post. I did not deny that Catholics were the only religionists expressly excluded; on the contrary, I expressly said that they were. However, this absolutely does not mean that Muslims, etc could become a British monarch; again on the contrary, their exclusion can be taken for granted, since they are not members of the Church of England.

Your claim to the contrary was utter nonsense.

Like

And re-read my comment. Would a member of the DRC become head of Vatican State? No.
Your falling back on whingeing about being persecuted indicates your actual motivation. I live in England and would dread having a RC as prime minister because of the deleterious effect on human rights such an appointment would cause.

Like

There’s no new clergy moves in Kilmore. Paul Prior will have to wait until the new bishop is installed before he gets an appointment.

Like

Nonsense. Paul Prior was appointed temporary curate of Glenfarne a few weeks ago. Appointments do not have to wait for a bishop to be in place. Diocesan Administrators make appointments all the time when a diocesan see is vacant.

Like

Yes. But am I correct in assuming that such appointments are only pro tem or provisional until confirmed by a new bishop?

Like

The experience of the Irish people was that the Virgin Mary answered their prayers that is why they honoured her as Queen of Ireland. The original schema for Vatican Two had a document called ‘ Mary Mother of Men’ this was dropped to purse ecumenism and not teach anything offensive to Protestants, there wasn’t any Marian devotion during the 1970s and then in the 80s the Medjagore phenomenon appeared and tapped into a vacuum

Like

9.00

The experience of the Irish people was that the Virgin Mary answered their prayers?

One million victims of famine might disagree with you.

Mary cannot answer prayer; only God can. And in my experience, he nearly always doesn’t.

Like

@9:55 I am a health professional and can confirm that unfortunately people do continue to do things which don’t work in the hope they will.
People use any number of quack remedies and pursue diets which the evidence indicates won’t work.
But they keep on because people tell them they will work.
Why would religion be any different?

Like

9.55
When you’re desperate or despairing, you’ll pray to anything or anyone, especially if told that there might be a chance of remedy. It’s part of the human condition, even when bitter experience tells you it’s absolutely pointless. We even have a name for it: forlorn hope.
I noticed you sidestepped the famine victims. Why? I’m reasonably sure most of them literally begged the Virgin Mary for help, and yet she just looked on while whole families died slow, agonised deaths through starvation.
Maybe she was too busy enjoying the Beatific Vision to bother.

Like

2.22
No one is blaming ‘Our Lady’ for that terrible famine. But it not unreasonable to blame her, and her son, for failing those who died a truly horrible and protracted death from starvation. Surely you must wonder why this was so.
And it wasn’t only the ‘Protestant Ascendency’ involved in ignoring the desperate plight of those poor people: there were Catholic farmers involved as well, along with Catholic priests (not one of whom died of starvation) and the Catholic Church, which during the famine period spent, by today’s standard, literally millions of pounds on building programmes while ignoring human temples of the Holy Spirit.
By the way, tarring the entire ‘Protestant Ascendency’ with the brush of your obvious sectarian bigotry shows how little you know of Irish history: many of them did a great deal to help their starving tenants, of whom some bankrupted themselves.

Like

Ireland, as Benjamin Disraeli put it in 1844, had “a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien established Protestant church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world”.

Like

6.44
And Disraeli might have added ‘and a predominant church whose Catholic ministers served their own needs well, but not so well the needs of the god in the poor they claimed to serve’.

Like

9.46: Ad Jesum per Maria. A mother of Mary’s stature, humility and lowliness would only ever lead us to Jesus. Her YES to God’s invitation allows Jesus to be on into the world. Jesus – God-with -Us. Thanks to our Blessed Mother. She deserves our respect, honour, praise and a unique place in our CATHOLIC prayer and devotion. Yes, for Catholics not the Oratory heretics.

Like

10:08am
Yes indeed Ad Jesum per Marium, without Our Blessed Lady’s fiat there would be no redemption. She as The Immaculate Mother of God is deserving of our veneration Hyper Dulia but not adoration and worship Latria which is due to God alone. This has always been the teaching of Our Holy Mother The Church, the heretics don’t get it, but who cares about them. The words of the May hymn “How dark without Mary life’s journey would be” is so true. Queen of The Most Holy Rosary, pray for us.

Like

10.08
I prefer Per Jesum per Mariam: by Jesus THROUGH Mary.
We do not have to go through Mary to access Christ: ‘No one can come to the Father except through me.’ No mention here of Mary.

Like

“. . . More things are wrought by prayer
Than this world dreams of. Wherefore, let thy voice
Rise like a fountain for me night and day.
For what are men better than sheep or goats
That nourish a blind life within the brain,
If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer
Both for themselves and those who call them friend?
For so the whole round earth is every way
Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.”

—King Arthur to Sir Bedivere, in “The Passing of Arthur” from ‘Idylls of the King’ by Alfred Tennyson

Like

10.16
And wherefore rose those plaintive voices, heartened in woe by woe’s false balm, to ears unhearing.
And no one hastened to their cry.
The plaintive voices of Irish famine victims; the agonised wails of babes in the womb; the raped; the tortured in mind or body…
Those words by Tennyson are just that: words. And they are cheap words to all those whoever begged God, or the Virgin Mary, for help and found none.

Like

Any news from Motherwell, Bp Pat, or will you be doing a separate blog on the alleged laicization of Mr Despard? I wonder.

Like

It has been difficult to get up to date info about this. Bishop Toal said he could return to a Parish a couple of years ago, if he accepted several conditions. One was to publicly apologise for hurt and distress to Clergy and lay faithful (never going to happen), then he was told he would need to agree to Priest in charge of a new Parish and not PP, he was to sign a new obedience agreement, a life-long confidentiality agreement, plus several other conditions. All this follows a trial and appeal in a kangaroo Court. There has been a stand off for years and I wonder if it has now reached a natural conclusion, as it shouldn’t be able to rumble on indefinitely. Although I support him, not sure it is right that he should be drawing a monthly payment form the Diocese (lay faithful) when he hasn’t contributed for years now. I also know of at least 3 clergy who would resign if he returned. He should set up an independent Ministry, release the book and other books and name and shame the sexually active Priests and Bishops across Scotland.

Like

It was inevitable, his alleged laicization, I mean, you couldn’t publish such a book without the knowledge or permission of the hierarchy, especially during the height of the O’Brien scandal. I imagine the two Pats are in close communication as further details unfold.

Like

Inspector Taggart. I do hop you are not insinuating that here are active gay bishops in Scotland. Whatever next?

Like

Bp Pat, this has just appeared on Patrician McKeever’s CTS blog regarding Mr now back to Fr Matthew Despard.
I have just received the following reply to my email sent to the Chancellor of the Diocese of Motherwell, earlier this afternoon, asking if it is true that Fr Despard has been dismissed from the clerical state:
Hi Patricia aka Little Rancid Flower,
Another hoax or rumour, whatever you want to call it. There is no truth in it.
Best wishes.
Deacon Jim

Like

Pat this is so creepy Paul Prior ended up in the former Parish of Drury. Prior could never let go the abuse memories of Drury, in short the Stockholm syndrome. Prior fell in love with his abuser and this new placement in the life of Prior speaks volumes.

Like

Prior wont survive no fine dining or gay wine bars to unpack the day’s events. Where did it all go wrong. One shudders to think.

Like

I am pleased to see acknowledgement and expressions above, that the religious concept of an ever loving and caring personal God is completely fatuous. It defies all the evidence properly raised by those who question both the existence of, and the value, of this alleged God who does not intervene and simply watches idly while humankind suffers tragedies both on a vast scale, and on an individual personal level, not only now, but throughout human history. And not only modern homo sapiens, but our ancestors too in the other chains of the humanoid family tree.
Yet this alleged supernatural all powerful God, who can do anything both within or outside the “laws of nature,” by comparison, allegedly does all kinds of simply idiotic inconsequential things: sends His Son to a nondescript primitive desert like region to be born of a virgin; to be crucified by those He’s trying to “save”; magically changes water to wine; walks on water; raises a dead man; etc etc, yet, to take but one example, can’t be bothered on a continuing worldwide basis, to alter weather patterns to save crops and stave off widespread famines. As Anon@ 4:46am above points out, ” this God “is a monster of arbitrary decisions and not loving in any way.” I would say, “this FIGMENT of God”.
For that’s what it is!
Anon@ 10:03 & 10:11, correctly identify the forlorn hope in quack remedies.
MMM

Like

I think the credal beliefs in god are also very dependent on very selective readings of scriptures. I haven’t thought of this as forlorn hope up to today but it might well be!
I have recently found reading The Jewish Annotated Bible very interesting, mainly because it has revealed the Christian eyes through which I read the Hebrew Bible. And also revealed other biases – I have been studying the Bible for three decades but only now have realised that when three persons appear to Abraham at Mamre, this is simply because ancient Canaanite gods always went around with two escorts!

Like

Those in charge of religion, on an immature power trip, sold the public a non-existent “God”, while they are no evangelists.

Like

1.07: Can you write your comnent in an intelligent, meaningful, coherent manner? It’s gobbledygook.

Like

+Pat, in response to your question yesterday; “Is there a difference between religion and spirituality.”
Misunderstandings, and arguments arise from definition and understandings of terms. In the following I give my understanding.
Religion can be described as systems of faith based belief in supernatural beings. In the western world this is usually belief in a single creator god with whom there is a personal relationship requiring belief, trust and consequent responsible moral behaviour. These characteristics are not necessarily dependent on intervening ecclesiastical apparatus instituted by human organisations purportedly said to be representing religious beliefs, for example, the Roman Catholic Church. Among followers of religion some individuals develop personal characteristics involving singular focus on the supernatural being and consequent high level of selfless behaviour. This can be said to mark them, and their behaviour, as having a spiritual dimension. I do not think that arcane weird practices of some religious traditions such as fasting are spiritual, nor do I think that spirituality is necessarily dependent on religious belief.
I regard spirituality as present where there is a significant level of self awareness in understanding self as more than just a complex amalgam of functioning organic material, and where that self awareness extends to recognition of value in others and our inter dependent humanity such as to motivate the individual towards continuous open hearted generosity of behaviour without expectation of reciprocity, in this life, or some imagined future one.
MMM

Like

T. Deenihan’s appointment as bishop as announced on the Vatican’s website for 18 June, 2018 says that he was awarded a doctorate in education from the University of Hull. It doesn’t mention a master’s degree. If he doesn’t have a masters, the education doctorate (PhD? EdD?) will have been his first degree.

Like

5:36, he likely did an undergrad of some sort after the 2 year sem course. You may be interested to know that admissions to any course can be based on life experience in a particular field.

Like

He gained a master’s degree in education in 1999 from the University of Hull, and subsequently gained a Doctorate in Education.

Like

“Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus loves her.” -Saint Maximilian Mary Kolbe

Like

You are correct at 12.17pm. Diocesan administrators do make appointments. However, There is a PP in Mullagh so Paul Prior is not going there. Glenfarne is a different place….many miles from Mullagh.

Like

Pat what do you think of the Medjugorje phenomenon? I find it hard to believe that Our Lady would be appearing sometimes daily for almost 40 years to six different people. I have read a lot about it and found the account by Mirjana (one of the visionaries ) in her book My Heart Will Triumph. very convincing . However books and articles asserting that it is all a hoax and a money-making scheme are also convincing. So one does not know what to believe

Like

It seems that many of the visionaries famiky members have done well financially building nice houses etc???

Like

6:01pm
I have great devotion to Our Blessed Lady but I do not believe Our Blessed Lady has ever appeared in Medjugorje, its all very iffy and has never been approved by The Church. The Bishop of Mostar has condemned it many times, as well as those dreadful Franciscans who run the shrine.

Like

Pat, have you ever done or led a pilgrimage to Lough Derg? Does it appeal to you? I went there when Dick Mohan (the rudest priest in Clogher diocese) was the prior.

Like

What did you think of Lough Derg or indeed Lourdes, Fatima and Knock if you’ve been to such places? That might make for an interesting blog topic.

Like

Lough Derg. No. Lourdes love it, there 28 times. Knock does nothing for me. Never been to Fatima and not interested.

Like

Thanks, Pat. That’s my view too. Lough Derg and Knock left me cold, I loved Lourdes, and I have no desire at all to go to Fatima or Megaforgery.

Like

5.55pm
Went to medjugorje long time ago twice. I don’t believe it cis its a fraud probably on a massive scale. Each of visionaries have huge houses and other houses for letting out to tourists. One priest well known in medjug was lacisied cos he had a baby with a nun.. He was that priest in the early days of medjugorje. Successive bishops went against it but the vatican intervened cos many graces there plus of course money talks.
To be fair to medjugorje, I got my job after that 1sr trip. But 2nd trip was more scary with lots of evil presence which I hadn’t felt it before. It put me off big time. Even I went to the apparition room where it went live. I never felt anything nor could feel her presence. Messages aren’t from Mary cos she’s isn’t that type. Mary usually spoke few words or less and precise etc. It’s a babblespeak re medjugorje messages. That’s why I don’t believe it. You want to know more, just read e. Michael jones book.. Summary of it👇.
https://culturewars.com/medjugorje

Like

6.40 Mungo’s Mammy – if only you knew the half of it. Deacons, Priests, Canons, Monsignors, Bishops, Cardinals. Lots of them are gay, but that isn’t the issue – lots are actively gay or have been over the years and live in fear for being outed. Glasgow is the worst, Paisley and Motherwell a close second. Edinburgh and the others have their fair share. Watch out for the story that will break about Cardinal Keith’s accusers – they have all been active in the past and they all came together and turned on him like a pack of of dogs. Lots more to come out about Glasgow too.

Like

a doctorate, a secretary to the Irish Bishops Conference, experience of working in the states, and lecturing, photogenic and the right age. Bishop material right there. I doubt he will go to Dublin though, maybe Tuam? or even Galway when it becomes vacant in 2 years?

Like

Bishop Pat, I am unwell and have lost trust in people.
Do you think my evidence will be put in finally?
I have been let down so many times and it has hurt me to the point of brokenness.
You don’t have to post this, but I could do with reassurance. Please

Like

I saw another D’Arcyesque priest in The Old Coach Inn, Castleblayney today. Who may you ask? None other than Fr.Michael Cusack CssR. He was camping it up as usual and was even sporting a man bag over his shoulder. It would seem that the lure of Dundalk and its hinterlands are still proving to be a great attraction for him, and the few Euros and free feed that go along with it. He was sporting the wine coloured trousers he wore on the Daithi and Maura show when he regaled the nation with tales of being a Red. The man would eat himself if he were made of chocolate, if he hasn’t already been eaten by someone else!!

Like

I pray Paul Prior will one day find the inner courage to reconcile with his dark past. So much pain, suffering and anxiety. It ok Jesus loves you Paul Prior despite the harm you caused to young adult men.

Like

lol Paul Prior deemed Chris Derwin fit to be a Holy Priest, now look Derwin is an Ice cream man in an Ice cream shop. I give up.

Like

at least he is out of the Jesuits. Prior got a wee bit kiddy in a sexual way with the Novices Basically kicked out for inappropriate behaviors patterns and breach of interpersonal relationships. Its all there in an rapport. Happy reading all.

Like

All the negative comments about PPrior are from the same one or two sources – Did he look through you?

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s