Categories
Uncategorized

DID CHRIST FOUND A “PRIESTHOOD”?

Were I to believe that Jesus did not found a “priesthood” as some on this blog believe, I think I might also have to believe that I have also wasted the last 51 years of my life since I entered seminary on the 27th September 1970.

So I do not believe I have wasted 51 years and I do believe that Christ founded a “priesthood”, or a certain type of ” discipleship”.

Jesus chose the 12 and sent them out. In each place they went they founded “local churches”.

Very early on members of those local communities emerged as “elders” – both men and women.

As communities grew a “college of elders” emerged for two reasons:

1. The communities were getting bigger and needed “officers” to guide and administer.

2. Many heresies crept in and these elders were there to teach truth and oppose error.

Eventually the colleges of elders chose a senior elder to be their”overseer” (episcopus)

We can see in the Scriptures from the time of Stephen, the developement of the diaconate – both male and female.

This leaves us with the three basic “orders” the deacon, the elder (priest) and overseer (bishop).

It is made quite clear in the New Testament that none of these people were to lord it over anyone else, but to be their brother, shepherd and servant.

We Catholics believe that there are two sources of God’s Revelation – Scripture and Holy ( as opposed to unholy) Tradition.

Cardinal Newman speaks a lot about the “development of doctrine”. Of course, that means that there can be good, bad neutral development.

I believe that the Holy Orders of today – deacon, priest and bishop are in keeping with the practice of the early church.

But other bad things happened:

1. The Christian Church aligning with Constantine and the State – leading the church, very wrongly, to take on the trappings of an empire.

2. The development of the three orders of servants becoming officers of an empire – leading eventually to the creation of a canonical clerical caste and a domineering hierarchical structure.

In one fell swoop, the servants had become the masters 😭

THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS:

I believe that the “development” of the sacraments was, in itself, in keeping with the intentions of Jesus and the early church.

Jesus was BAPTISED.

Jesus sent the Spirit – CONFIRMATION.

Jesus commanded his followers to break bread – EUCHARIST.

Jesus instructed his followers to bind and loose on earth – PENANCE.

From the beginning Jesus and the early church laid hands in people who were appointed to new ministeries – HOLY ORDERS.

James ordered that the elders pray over the sick – SACREMENT OF THE SICK.

MARRIAGE was a late startes and the church only took it serious from the 12 th onwards.

Of course Jesus never laid down who was to preside over the BREAKING OF THE BREAD.

SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES

RC bishops are very wrongly described as “the the successors of the apostles”.

With one or two exceptions, the apostles were NOT the overseeing elders in individual churches.

The apostles were missionary and had a function to perform for all the churches.

John certainly was the overseer in Jerusalem and later Antioch.

Peter’s presence is Rome is not established without doubt and controversy.

Peter was never the bishop of Rome.

The papacy is one of those very, very bad, not Christ intended traditions.

ADD ONS

Only a fool would claim that the church, in history, has not added on to the New Testament and early tradition – and not always for good reasons.

THE TASK:

The secret for us Christians today is to remove the man made ivy that has overgrown the House of God, and return to the values and practices we find in Jesus and the early church

THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE DIRTY WATER is not the Christ option, in my opinion.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

108 replies on “DID CHRIST FOUND A “PRIESTHOOD”?”

Pat, a very good and thought provoking article. I agree with you almost in everything. I especially think your understanding of the sacraments is wonderful, just as I would perceive them too. Over the centuries much has changed. Leaving aside the stranglehold which the conveniently man made rules have wrought on us and the various scandals which has shattered trust and credibility, I believe you have distilled the essence of discipleship. Change happens all the time: theology and ecclesiology naturally must change too. While respecting and valuing our long history and traditions of teachings, we must not remain static or closed to new visions of Christian discipleship, charisms and faith experiences. You and I (moreso as a Catholic priest) may be excoriated for believing this understanding and will be told that Christ never intended a “priesthood” but, like you, with almost as many years, with much learning and experiences, I do not believe I have wasted my time, though there have been many setbacks. Every day, strangely, something happens which affirms my decision to continue…So many incredible moments have been given to make some recognisable difference to others. Despite the horrendous background at times, much good is achievable once we stay with Christ alone. Such is possible with God’s grace!

Like

In Presbyterian polity the congregation call a minister to them. That would help stop bishops imposing priests and stop the priest thinking the church is his.

Like

On the other hand, Presbyterians pick a Minister in their own image and likeness and ministers in search a pulpit literally preach to the gallery three Sundays in a row to get the majority of votes, Eurovision-style.

That’s not how we want to do things in the Church. It is why you see so many different Presbyterian churches in small NI towns, reflecting splits in congregations.

Like

I am pretty sure he would be appalled at the RCC priesthood as currently constituted. He would probably have more in common with the extinction rebellion movement. The RCC has betrayed his teachings. I mean fat old mother Burke waddling down the aisle in her capa magna claiming to personify him would make him burst into fits of laughter.

Like

@12:02pm
That’s your opinion, I’m sure He would be more appalled with the extinction rebellion movement, a bunch of anarchists if ever there was one. What made me burst out laughing was when members of the public pulled them off the top of a tube train and battered them. They were trying to stop people getting to work and the public let them know in no certain terms what they thought of them.

Like

Jesus never wanted to start a church or religion He founded the Way and people followed. At some stage the fellowship became a branded product like McDonald’s and burger king. Ow we have the brand names but have we lost the main ingredient hi

Like

A married Church of England bishop has resigned from his position in order to join the Roman Catholic Church.
The Anglican Bishop of Ebbsfleet, Jonathan Goodall, said he made the decision following a long period of prayer “which has been among the most testing periods of my life”.
Bishop of Ebbsfleet for eight years, he will now seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said he accepted the resignation “with regret”.
Bishop Goodall served as a provincial episcopal visitor, also known as a “flying bishop”, ministering various parishes which decline to be overseen by a woman bishop.
He was a member of The Society, which seeks to promote and maintain catholic teaching and practice within the Church of England.
Anglicans’ regret over conversion
Anglican bishops join Catholics
He has a wife, Sarah, and two children. Although Catholic priests are not permitted to marry, the Roman Catholic Church has in the past accepted married Anglican priests who convert.
In a statement on Friday, Bishop Goodall said: “Life in the communion of the Church of England has shaped and nourished my discipleship as a Catholic Christian for many decades.”

Like

No. Since it is very clear in scripture that he is not the Messiah the Jews expect, he cannot have intended to.

Like

I have noticed that RC clergy who are marking or celebrating an ordination anniversary refer to loving ‘my priesthood’ as if they, in some way, possessed it, like it was their possession.
They also speak in term of priests, plural whereas my reading of the Letter to the Hebrews says there is only one priest and we all, through baptism, share in the priesthood of Christ.
Furthermore, Jesus’ priesthood is unique because he is both priest and victim.
Priests therefore only have some share in the priesthood of Christ.
That said. and as I understand it, there were presbyters and deacons/deaconesses in the early church but they were servant roles, called to serve not lord it over their fellow believers.
Also, Jesus’ moral and ethical teaching is rooted in the idea that he who is first shall be last, the greatest, the one who serves and we are unworthy servants only doing our duty, so no one can boast. and if we do boast, we boast in the Lord.
From St Augustine to St Thomas Aquinas what is clear is they got many things wrong and i find it hard to believe that the subsequent theology surrounding the priesthood is rooted in patriarchy. misogyny and the power structure reminiscent of Imperial Rome.
A celibate priesthood is intimately tied to protecting church property rights and a management device to separate priests from the laity and a negative/anti-pleasure view of sexuality which understand sex to be dirty and shameful.
A recovery and renewal of baptism and the dignity of all believers would dilute the toxity that Catholicism is all about its clergy and actually all about Jesus Christ, God made man.

Like

Priesthood is a gift. Those who receive the gift have possession of it.

But the gift must be used to serve and never to dictate.

Far too many priests are dictators – like the current incumbent of Magherafelt.

Like

I agree, we should never allow a cleric to use his, or her’s, ministry to dictate to us: and take away our human rights and freedom of choice — just ask +Paul.
In God’s garden and we have all been entrusted to keep out the nasty, poisonous and toxic weeds intent on choking out the daisies, buttercups and other innocent and beautiful flowers. Again, ask +Paul.
The Father’s garden is a safe and happy garden; hedgehogs, mice and stray cats alike are all welcome in the Father’s garden — and they will flourish in the beautiful sunlight of the Son. They will be protected beneath the shade of the green and leafy trees — and No harm will come to them, they will be under the watchful gaze of the Father. Again, just ask around x

Like

10.41: They also tend to go to the loo! We’re feckin human like you, idiot…What arrant nonsense. Of course it’s “our” mass but how often do you participate to be part of “our”? Never!!

Like

Only a fool would claim that the church, in history, has not added on to the New Testament and early tradition – and not always for good reasons.
The secret for us Christians today is to remove the man made ivy that has overgrown the House of God, and return to the values and practices we find in Jesus and the early church.
And an excellent arguement for the lads! Well done Pat, you have presented both arguements very well, yours yesterday and the lads today.

Like

The two first paragraphs of this blog are the primary reason Pat believes that Jesus intended priesthood, and that reason is neither biblical nor historical; it is essentially personal. Pat just cannot bring himself to accept that priesthood is a deviation from the discipleship intended by Christ, since this would, in his mind, make a waste of his 51 years as a priest.

I hate to say this, Pat, but the question of priestly authenticity isn’t about you; really.

The roles in the early church you mentioned were not priestly roles; they were entirely administrative. They were structurally reasonable, given the burgeoning of local churches. But they were NOT sacramental. Suggesting otherwise is ignorance of history from vested self-interest.

If we must use the word ‘priest’ for argument’s sake, then Jesus intended a common priesthood in which every man, woman, and child would break bread and drink wine in his memory. Everyone, man, woman, and child would baptise as well, and they were to forgive one another, ‘seventy times seven’ in Jesus’ name. These were the true sacraments, and ecclesial commonality and communion.

Romanist priesthood (which you, Pat, share in) is an entirely different beast; and ‘beast’ is the right word for it, since it bears absolutely no resemblance to the model of discipleship and sacramentality in the early church. This priestood took away (‘stole’ is actually a better word) the sacramental commonality and communion Jesus intended and turned it into a platform of privilege, entitlement and exceptionalism for an elite few. The sordid history of this priesthood, and the jealous attempts to justify its existence and maintain its elitism by priests thenselves, including you, should surprise no one today.

Like

Magna, I totally disagree with your comment and I think you are looking at the topic from some unhappy place inside yourself and not from the point of view of scripture and theology.

The Oxford dictionary says that a priest is:

“an ordained minister of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican Church, authorized to perform certain rites and administer certain sacraments”.

Minister and priest are interchangable words depending on what church you belong to.

Like

Really not being funny Pat, but there is no way on earth you can have expected to have a constructive discussion with the title of this blog post.
I wonder what is going on in you that made you give it a title calculated to get your comments dismissed by frankly every shade of opinion in the world.

Like

10.17: As I thought Pat: Magna would condemn your understanding of priesthood and my understanding of it. He is, as you rightly say, seeing things from a very hurt place in his heart. We all know this. There is no need to rehash his odious and contemptible denigration of your ministry and the ministry of priests. His arrogance and continued, repeat rage about those who embrace priesthood is shameful. He cannot bear the reality that he was deemed unfit for such a ministry. However, since he believes that all of us, through baptism, share in the priesthood of Christ, why doesn’t he partake in and embrace this God given gift? Could it be that his unsuitability for a public ministry of any kind in the name of Jesus can be spotted by his language alone? His utterances are founded on angst ridden, schizophrenic sands. Magna: no more disdain or contempt. We read you before….

Like

Magna obviously has issues. But we need to be careful as we are not diagnosticians 😉

Like

Interesting food for thought. Both arguments are very well presented.
Bishops are sitting in the seat of the apostles, in my humble opinion. Bishops have gotten tangled up in man made ivy and others in their own web of deceit.
The evolution of the sacraments has a history and it’s all there for those with an interest in the history of it.
Not all man made developments are bad e.g. the Lenten season.
Mary Magdalene was slandered by the church. It shaped her reputation for 14th centuries. Her prominence in the gospels is uncomfortable for some.
As the Church celebrate the Nativity of Mary today, September 8th, may those who sit in the seat of the apostles catch themselves on when it comes to proper inclusion of women in the Church.
PAX

Like

When I meet a priest I often think what else would or could this man do? If many or most were not priests I’m not sure many would be gainfully employed.
Many are not v hard working – I think the idea of hard graft is an anathema but being the centre of attention is the drug that keeps on giving – I find the idea that priests see themselves as Persona Christi repellent and depressing.
Surely we are all Persona Christi, as Paul says, ‘It is Christ who lives and I live in him’ or did he write this for clergy and clergy alone?
I think baptism is a gift whereas I think today’s priesthood of a gift has been fatally and irretrievably abused and trampled on – as gifts often can be by ungrateful recipients.

Like

10.25: We, as priests, by the very nature of what We take on, are to “act” in “persona Christi” which of course is a daily decision we make. While our pastoral work can be quite demanding spiritually, emotionally and mentally at times, I would never compare my work to that of my married sisters or brothers and friends, whose work demands are extraordinary. I admire their dedication and commitment way before that of myself and other colleagues. Some priests just do the minimum but the majority of us, now that we are almost on our own in parishes as P.P’s, Administrators etc.. have more responsibilities. As for wondering if we would be employable if we weren’t priests!! Sorry to disappoint you but I left teaching for priesthood as did three others in my class. One left the world of banking, one pharmacy and two others left civil service: all of us very employable professionally if we chose to leave but we haven’t. The other students were all university educated and the three who left priesthood found very gainful and amazing work in other professional fields. So, your cynical judgment doesn’t stand up to reality. I have encountered many married men in parishes who were once priests and all were working in professional areas of education, banking, technology and communications. Your assertions about priests are gratuitously offensive and an untrue narrative to promulgate. Yes, we are all called to be Christ for others: that’s why I chose priesthood against teaching and I have no sense of any superiority over anyone. The ministry of priesthood gives me wonderful opportunities of seeking Christ and of being Christ. Never had any feeling I was/am better than all whom I meet. Never. Exaggerations do a disservice and injustice to all.

Like

10.27pm
I agree, good priests are a blessing but as rare as hens teeth or unicorn droppings and they must surely suffer but perhaps that’s integral to your vocation.
I also believe good priests fight for renewal and refuse to accept the status quo and run the risk of being spat out by the institution they serve.

Like

Magna,

You have had your say on this topic for today and everybody knows how you regard the RC priesthood.

For today, at least, you have had your say.

Like

If you want Magna to have had his say you need to stop other people commenting about him.
Would you like that?

Like

I’ve binned several comments goading Magna.

By the way, he is not banned. He has just used up his allowed quota for today.

Like

Pope Francis is calling a synod on synodality in October – I think Pat should be invited as he’s a voice in the wilderness talking some good sense.
I always think it’s ironic that the RCC esteems dialogue but there is no institution on earth so opposed and resistant to dialogue and given to shitting discussion down.
Didn’t PJPII for example say any discussion on women’s ordination was banned and many clergy simply will not engage in a discussion if they sense hostility or resistance to their world view – rather like the Taliban I feel.

Like

Voices in the wilderness should be welcome.
I disagree with Church Militant on somethings e.g. his opposition to LGBT love.
They have had good initiatives it must be said though. They hosted a panel of innocent priests who have been wronged. They also hosted a panel of innocent seminarians who were let down by the powers that be.
Bishops will be having a policy meeting in Baltimore on November 16th. Church Militant are going to have 3,000 Catholics at a rally right next door, calling out the bishops for their failures!

Like

10.48: Pat, thank you for reprimanding Magna. He cannot be allowed, yet again, to debase your blog and control it. His narratives are well rehearsed. It’s time to bid farewell for now to his aggressive, arrogant style. He is so unnecessarily vexacious and full of anger. Let’s pray for him…

Like

11.18
Magna cannot control the blog but one thing Magna does is stand up to the points.
You @ 10.48 have had innocent people “pulled” in and it is time you stoud up and have the convictions like magna,

James, Mark, Paul, Truth Seeker,Manta Ray, Ex Lover of Chris Morris, NDA’s Paisley, and now a sem @ the Greg and many more names.

Innocent Priests and Seminarians have suffered because of what you think through the rose tinted glasses.

Like

12:18,
A new bishop in recent years has prioritised an increase in vocations. The scandal of seminarian mistreatment does not aid that ambition and damages trust.

Like

12:12 You are sidestepping my questions, Seamus. Take your own advice by speaking the truth of innocent seminarians and priests abuse. What cliques and why is it an inconvenience?

Like

1:41,
No sidestep at all. What cliques are you looking to speak of?
Regards the seminarians, you’d want to look in the direction of those running the seminary.
Only one bishop acted on the summer of ’16. The rest of the Episcopal leaders circled the wagons to minimise the scandal that had made national media coverage.

Like

5:59 pm You mentioned cliques @10:52am. What cliques were you referring to? Are you saying Episcopal leaders are willing to continue covering up as a strategy to avoid scandal?

Like

7:40,
The summer of ’16 smacked of a cover-up to me. It surely more than a coincidence that the blog was shut down soon after?
P.S. The wayward abbot has some brass neck. He must resign. Disgraceful.

Like

I don’t know who Magna Carta is, nor do I really care. One thing is certain – he is a very sad and unfortunate character. He argues daily that Christ did not institute the priesthood, yet Magna himself failed to attain the priesthood. I can’t imagine the deep hurt this caused his psyche. I believe he is acting out this hurt by trying to demean the thing he wanted most…to be a priest.
It is like falling in love with a woman who does not want you. Suddenly love turns hate because of the rejection…yet deep down buried in the psyche you want the woman to love you but you lash out to try and save face.
By demeaning the priesthood, Magna only demeans himself because he was found unsuitable for that which he now demeans. It is terribly sad to see him come to this blog daily, hourly, minute by minute living out his trauma over and over.
The truth Pat, Magna despises you and every other priest because you attained what he could not. It is that simple.

Like

Another name not onto 16 names.
Magna maybe was never at the Seminary and maybe never trained for a Religious Order but one think Magna is very intelligent and many myself included would be left standing with Magana’s intelligence.
If Magna has been asked to leave well if it is in this Millennium Magna has had a extremely lucky escape and even this last decade the RCC have NOT been producing Celibate Priests they have been producing priests unfit for ministry and if you look at they a 36 waist would be a bonus.
It is the Bishops that are letting the Church down badly however the people are NOT returning.

Like

I dont know who Maga is and have never met him.

It is clear that some if his views are very extreme.

We dont really KNOW what has caused that.

The suggestions to pray for him and wish him well are proper.

Like

I think there is the truth of reality in Magna’s second sentence Pat.
I’ve said it before on this blog, namely that if they had viable options, many RC clergy would quit tomorrow. And the motivation wouldn’t just be current scandals showing the RCC to be a misguided misleading and injurious institution. I believe many clerics, against all evidence to the contrary, console themselves to believe in the validity of their priestly role as being according to God’s wishes as articulated by Christ: they cling to this belief from the feelings of “doing good works ” in a pastoral role. It must be very hard to accept that 20, 40 or more years of religion based priestly activity has been based on sham beliefs.
For many clerics harbouring doubts the prospect of loss of role, significance, and hope of final post mortem rewards must be quite persuasive quite apart from the immediate financial consequences of ‘packing it in’.
MMM

Like

There are many clergy that do not believe and do not pray.

They are either trapped in the priesthood or use it as a cosy lifestyle to do their own thing.

I do not at all think that my 51 years was based on sham beliefs.

In fact, in spite of everything my own private faith is very strong.

Like

@1:24: yes indeed they would, for it’s a highly pressurised demanding poorly paid profession where you’re “dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t!” The majority of social work staff come into the work from a sense of care rather than financial incentive.

Like

11.44::MMM, why do you always feel the need to assert your belief that, were it viable and possible, many priests would leave. Some might do so but the majority of us stay and do our utmost to live the ideal we took on at ordination. Sustaining that ideal is very challenging. I have doubts, I’ve been tempted to leave. I left teaching for priesthood and many of my classmates have qualifications (3rd level) and had previous professional careers. All of us could have found work opportunities. Some who left became happily married and have professional.careers. Your repeat narrative is rather ignorant. It is an easy sound byte that belittles a chosen way of life that you don’t believe in or subscribe to. Like Pat, I and many others do not live a “sham” priesthood. That epithet may have been yours had you remained!! But please, find new narratives. Your repeat chapters are tiresome.

Like

1.34: Very good argument. Sound, balanced and intelligent. MMM should desist from repeat narratives too. They eventually become tedious and tiresome especially when we hear it almost on a daily basis..👍👍👍👍👍..

Like

REMINDER

Magna is not the topic of today’s blog and he has been discussed ad nauseam.

Lets stick to today’s topic.

Like

Given theology develops could the theology of priesthood change and develop?
New emphasis/accent on Servant Priest not Master Priest – a removal of all ecclesiastical titles and adhering to biblical injunction to call no man Father.
Worker Priests – ordinary jobs – factories and labouring – parish upkeep a lay responsibility not a clerical one.
Radical change to Canon Law and Parrish structure so that parish cheque book not just Fathers so he doesn’t see himself as owning the parish but as it’s servant.
Faculty to Bless and reach out to everyone in the community- gays, transsexuals, , transvestites, the weird and the wonderful.
Canon Law recognition that Father isn’t the beholder of every gift, ministry and charism – that in the parish are: propers, healers, administrators, and seers.
Just as Vatican II reestablishrd the permanent diaconate so too deaconesses becomes a recognised and important ministry.

Like

Why do we need to clericalise the laity by turning them into deacons or deaconesses? Is it an upgrade form the ranks, like being a corporal in the army? Is Holy Orders about conferring status or gerring people dressed up? I’ll go to my tomb bewildered by the fact that eg the Archdiocese of Liverpool has over 100 permanent deacons. They have no sacramental functions over and above what any lay person has. Are we really saying that the only way we can get lay people to do things is by ordaining them, or treating the diaconate as a secobd career for retired headmasters, rewarded for good service?

Like

I’m quite at home with a “high” theology of priesthood. When it’s properly understood it boils down to “imitate the mystery you celebrate, model your life on the Lord’s cross”. The traditional Catholic understanding doesn’t really place a priest on a pedestal but is actually incredibly demanding of the person who receives it, to be “body and blood” the manifestation of God’s total availability/self giving for his people out of love. Nothing glamorous about a life where your throne is the cross. The “ivy” that +Pat talks about would seem to be the sociological imposition of power and position. We have that in Ireland and still suffer from the unhelpful mindset that “Father” is to be revered. Priests in Ireland where called Mister until relativly recently. I believe it was during the time time of Cardinal Cullen that the title became common. Maybe other blog readers will be able to correct or affirm that? I’m only using the title as an example, that those external things are really sociocultural and have nothing to do with priesthood theologically.

Like

11.52: Pat: You need to leave Magna off for some time. He invariably dominates irrespective of topics. By now we know his skewed theology of priesthood. Leave him for now. Thank you. A good, reflective post today for discussion. As priests we need clarity about our ministry, teachings and theology but we also need to be open to new ideas and imagination about the gospel of Christ, priesthood for all of the baptised, theology, morality and building of local church communities.

Like

Well done in giving the cathbots what they want – they don’t want to debate they want to silence any contrary voice. Are you so naive as not to see that they want that for you too?

Like

1.17: Utter nonsense. MC is uncontrolled violence. He wouldn’t be tolerated on any other blog or space. Pat is correct. MC’s absence will be a victory for rational, respectful debate. If you don’t like Pat’s decision, don’t read the blog.

Like

I don’t want to ban MC from the blog. I just want him to address the issue of the day, in a controlled way, watch his language and refrain from hate words.

Like

I want debate. But I don’t want the blog to be a MAGNA v CATHBOTS blog.

Lets talk about the topic of today rather than trade personal insults.

Like

3:11 pm Can someone define a good priest considering the extent of covering up for bad priests by their colleagues?

Like

3:30 pm So define a good priest? Am I supposed to believe colleagues of a fraternity-considered “brothers”- don’t keep their mouths shut if they have knowledge of abuse corruption or criminal activities by their “brothers” in the fraternity?

Like

That has certainly happened a great deal globally.

Priests who do that are neither good priests nor people.

Like

There is no shortage of theory on priesthood. The proof of the pudding is in the practice (praxis). This blog continuously highlights clerical/ hierarchical hypocrisy : do as I say not as I do. Why take priests/bishops/ priesthood seriously?

Like

Lets highlight all the bad ones and acknowledge the good ones.

Like

The second largest Catholic population Mexico decriminalised abortion – illustrating that Catholic moral theology can’t withstand the tide of secularism and that liberal free democracies demand freedom of choice and resist the hypocrisy of protecting the innocent within the womb but sexually abusing the child outside the womb – the hypocrisy of Macial Marcial won’t have helped and the clerical hypocrisy regarding homosexuality (v high in Mexico) and child abuse/cover up was the nail in the coffin.

Like

Do we write off all parents because some parents are bad, indeed evil. Likewise, policemen, teachers, even – dare I say it social workers? Abusing priests acted against the moral law, the teachings of the church and the criminal law and deserve the severe punishments due to them. But you cannot rationally impute the guilt of some onto all priests.

In all of this, bishops got off largely unscathed. I firmly believe that the visitation of the Irish Church should have resulted in the Irish Church being put into special measures, even interdict, while a proper, thorough independent review was carried out. Pope Benedict should have forced the resignation of bishops who moved priests around or suppressed allegations or hid evidence. Sean Beady still popping up at events sickens me.

Like

Do we write off all parents because some parents are bad, indeed evil. Likewise, policemen, teachers, even – dare I say it social workers? Abusing priests acted against the moral law, the teachings of the church and the criminal law and deserve the severe punishments due to them. But you cannot rationally impute the guilt of some onto all priests.

In all of this, bishops got off largely unscathed. I firmly believe that the visitation of the Irish Church should have resulted in the Irish Church being put into special measures, even interdict, while a proper, thorough independent review was carried out. Pope Benedict should have forced the resignation of bishops who moved priests around or suppressed allegations or hid evidence. Sean Beady still popping up at events sickens me.

Like

2:47pm Parents or those in secular professions do not claim ontological difference or to be moral spiritual leaders of the Christian community. Pope Benedict was in the thick of cover up for years. Your mention of Sean ‘Wounded Healer’ Brady illustrates my earlier point- the fraternity comes first- regardless. After all, he was only following orders from on high.

Like

Sean Brady has no shame which is why he pops up to any event, even the opening of an envelope. Nobody in the present Armagh hirearchy has any shame either. Arrogant with a sense of entitlement.

Like

3.04
You don’t know what you are talking about.

Any parent who is baptized is ontologically changed.

The term ‘ontological change’ refers to any sacrament which can’t be repeated.

Like

6:48.pm Today’s topic is priesthood- sacrament of what used to be known as holy orders. The sacrament might nowadays be more appropriately called unholy orders.

Like

Well if you know the Wounded Healer stuff and his role as a young canon lawyer interrogating a child and swearing him to secrecy, you might balk at his frequent appearances bedecked in scarlet and presiding in choro. He should live a quiet retired life of prayer and repentence, supplying in parishes if he is able to.

Like

5:25.pm His role as a young canon lawyer didn’t damage his climb up the corporate ladder.

Like

I am a cradle Catholic but for about a year I attended a Presbyterian church. I very much admired the people and was impressed by their faith and hope.

I used to ask them why they had ministers, given that they didn’t have a theology of ministerial priesthood. Their view was that the minister was needed for the Communion service and baptism and weddings and funerals (an elder or deacon couldn’t do those things), which seemed like a sort of priesthood though not in name.

Like

@ Anonymous 10.49 am
Your words re Magna ‘angst ridden schizophrenic sands’.
I agree with Bishop Pat in his post when he said ‘We need to be careful as we are not diagnosticians’.
Anonymous, I find the language you have used offensive!
Thank you. That is all.

Like

2.55: Betty: my point is well validated by the reaction of many. MC spared no one his offensive words and descriptions. If you look back over a long period of time, you’ll find a pattern re: MC’s behaviour. Nothing changed except his vitriol became more obnoxious and offensive. It’s sad because he can make good arguments.

Like

Get a life Betty or whatever your real name is. You should learn to stop making a fool of yourself and just shut your cakehole.

Like

@ Anonymous (or whatever your name is), 3.55 pm.

What a silly reply!

Stop making a fool of yourself and stick to the topic.

Like

Suggestion: Magna can start his own blog and say whatever he wants over there. At least we can all collectively ignore him and it. I am not a Cathbot but Magna is tiresome. Lately, it has been Pat’s blogs featuring a play-by-play running commentary by Magna Carta. It’s completely oppressive. I come to read PAT BUCKLEY’S blog. I do not come to read Magna Carta’s BS!

Like

You could have made the same point without the term BS 😉

If we want MC to control his language we must do the same.

Like

This reminds me of Bess Truman’s response to women complaining about Harry Truman’s language. It’s taken me years to get him to say BS, mutatis mutandis, as it were.

Like

Betty you are coming across as a very silly person urging others to stick to the topic. Your original comment today was in defence of MC – that was hardly sticking to the topic dear.

Like

@ Anonymous 5.06 pm

No dear, my earlier comment was about ‘offensive language’
Now don’t be silly.

Like

Dear Pat
Are we to understand that the person known here as M.C. is an unknown but 13th Apostle privy to all that Jesus said and did.? Let’s ask him to write his memoires of those times that our Triune God walked the Earth in the human person of the Son? . Theology cannot be played at it is far better for your blog to stick to revelations of coverup which can be seen without any theological insight.

Like

That is JB I have a problem keeping my trousers on .He would fit in well with Holy Mother Church in that regard.

Like

Pat do you not think ArchBishop Jonathan Blake is taking the “p” seeking to extend his church in Ireland when you have made a stand for so many years ?Should he not leave you to it ?He plans to Ordain a Priest in Belfast .

Like

No. I don’t hold any entitlement with regards to ordination at all.

Its a free country – so JB and his mates are free to do what they want.

Like

I think Jonathan Blake likes to bat for both sides , but he attempts to keep is very well hidden .

Like

Well done on this blog today, Pat. It is self evident that Christ intended the ministerial priesthood and, from the beginning, this developed. He did not intend “lords” indeed but servant priests.
Very often on your blog all priests are lumped together as “kiddie fiddlers” and other vicious verbiage. This “romanist priest” nonsense that sounds like some deranged Paisleyite in the 1970s.
I have known many priests in my long life and the majority by far were decent and good human beings who were a credit to their vocations.
I am glad you intervened today to stop the false, lying and tedious narrative of an individual driven by heaven knows what. This goes on day and daily from this source and it is quite simply untrue and unjust against priests in general.
Jesus warned us about false shepherds in the Gospel. He did not intend his priests to lord it over people. Certainly not – quite the opposite. Well said.

Like

“I do believe that Christ founded a “priesthood”, or a certain type of ” discipleship”. I totally concur with this view. I continue to feel frustrated and angry by the actions of Dom Richard Purcell and his cabal as they continue to betray their sacred vows. Purcell and his likes are causing ruin and division. I continue to serve the Church.

Like

Our Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus, at first personally chose 12 followers / Appostles and appointed them His Disciples; 12 at first.
Mathias was chosen by the 11 remaining Disciples after Jesus Ascension.
Matthias was chosen by the 11 and not by Our Lord. This in itself strongly suggests they, the 11 Disciples, were very aware of the importance of some kind of ministry or “order of Elders” to be in positions of trust to ensure the faith was properly taught and handed down in the same respect.
They were “set aside” by Our Lord.
Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea and the other followers are all Apostles in the sense they were followers of Christ, Our Lord.
Our Lord rebuked them, the Disciples, when they murmured among themselve swho was to be the greatest among them and, to sit next to Him in heaven; therefore, Our Lord did not appoint a a “spacial” Disciple to rule over the others; He made it clear they were all very much equal.
“Popes” and “Patriarchs” came in around the 4th Century when Christianity was hijacked by the Romans – namely the Emperor Constantine.
Other Christian denominations, in the Western / Latin Church that is, normally don’t take anything from the 6th Council too seriously ( The 3rd Council of Constantinople ).
The 6th Council s where manmade doctrines became to take presidence over the Pauline and Petrine – and most importantly – Our Lord’s teachings and instructions. The Eastern / Byzantine Church were not all that fussed and just let the Western Church think they were in charge most of the time.

Nowadays, some Eastern Orthodox Churches are constantly at loggerheads with each other — but if the Western Church pokes it’s nose in to stand up for one side — they both “stand together” against the Western Church and defend each other.
It’s a very interesting, and fun, old world, isn’t it lol.
The Eastern Churches tend to be self-governing (autocephalous) meaning the head of that see does not report to any “higher” person (like a pope); they are simply: First among equals.
Patriarch = Arch Father — Not Archbishop! ( I suppose a little like an Archdeacon in the Anglican Communion! Roman Catholics have a Dean. Anyway, that’s not why you called

Like

‘Mornin’ Mush it’s only me’ …thank you for your enlightened post on Church matters concerning our Eastern Orthodox brothers. Mr. Bellfield, ‘anyway that’s not why you called’, et al, is also posting on Brandnewtube.com where a variety of issues are openly discussed including spirituality along with Church affairs. 😎

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