|
|
Post by earl on Aug 7, 2009 16:45:26 GMT
Ayatollah would have seen McQuaid as kindred spirit
EARLIER THIS week, Pope Benedict XVI said he was “deeply grieved” by the deaths of seven Christians in clashes with Muslims in Pakistan. These killings arose from an alleged desecration of the Koran. The pope urged Pakistani Christians to continue trying to build a society “marked by mutual respect” among religions. Could this be the same Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who in 2000 described all non-Christians as being in a “gravely deficient situation” regarding salvation?
Such pompous nonsense about one religion or the other holding the keys to heaven/salvation is by no means the sole preserve of the Vatican. Pretty much every religion believes everyone else is, to a lesser or greater extent, damned.
Yet it’s all a simple accident of geography. Being born in Ireland in the 1960s, like almost everyone else, I was automatically baptised a Catholic. Had I been born in Iran, I would almost certainly be a Muslim.
Iran today has strong echoes of the Ireland of the 1960s, with censorship, suffocating theocracy, religious interference into people’s private lives and church domination of public institutions, especially education. Then there was the harassment (and worse) of “deviants” – single mothers, children from poor families, intellectuals or gays – anyone who strayed from the script of what being Irish had come to mean.
Ayatollah Khamenei would have recognised a kindred spirit in the late Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, the man who virtually ghost-wrote de Valera’s 1937 Constitution. On Vatican II, McQuaid reassured his flock: “no change will worry the tranquillity of your Christian lives”.
Repressive, authoritarian systems of whatever hue lend themselves to the commission of great crimes by the powerful against the weak, and so it was to prove with the systematic abuse and brutalisation of 170,000 children over several decades by the very religious orders charged with their care. The Ryan report, published in May, laid out a black litany of clerical crimes and cover-ups. Clerical abuse is not the result of a few delinquents among the shepherds, wrote Christopher Hitchens, “but an outcome of an ideology which sought to establish clerical control by means of control of the sexual instinct, and even of the sexual organs”.
In 1967, a young film-maker, Peter Lennon, made the brilliant Rocky Road to Dublin, a brutally honest, unflattering portrait of Irish society that caused huge offence in official circles. Despite being accepted for the Cannes Film Festival, only one small independent Dublin cinema dared screen it in 1968. It took another 40 years before RTÉ (which still tolls the Angelus bells twice daily) would broadcast it.
What exactly were we so afraid of? In the film, writer, Seán O’Faoláin described Irish society in the 1960s as being “without moral courage, observing a self-interested silence . . . and in constant alliance with a completely obscurantist, repressive, regressive and uncultivated church”.
The priest offered to the film-makers by the church was a young Fr Michael Cleary. Sex nowadays, he told the film, “is so debased, it’s tossed around”. Only much later did Lennon discover that at the time of filming, Cleary was involved with his then 17-year-old housekeeper.
Ireland of the 1960s did indeed have its heroes. Docker James Gunnery was one. The recent RTÉ radio documentary, The Runners, told the story of a boy rescued by Gunnery from a hellhole called Ferry House in Clonmel run by the Rosminian order in 1968 – the very year Lennon’s film was offending “decent” Ireland.
“Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where no one had the smallest idea what was going on,” wrote Hitchens, who argues that it is “a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge – as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs”.
If you think religion in Ireland has evolved beyond intellectual infancy, Alive, a Catholic newspaper widely distributed in churches, will set you straight. In its mindset, religious freedom equates to the freedom to discriminate, especially against liberals and the homosexual movement.
Alive is itself a relic of the Ireland where one parish priest had the power to have the great John McGahern dismissed from his teaching post (his crime was writing The Dark). Lest we forget, this same monolith controls Irish education to this day.
Thanks in no small part to 36 years of EU membership, I am privileged to live in a mostly secular, pluralist democracy – one that protects the freedom to express views even if they are at variance with the caprice of the majority faith. Unless, that is, I fall foul of Dermot Ahern’s blasphemy legislation, an ugly throwback to the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 7, 2009 22:18:43 GMT
Couple of points, one the Church teaches no-one but God knows the fate of the dead for sure (with some obvious exceptions such as the Virgin Mary). It also does not teach that salvation can only be found within it, that is a popular misconception. Secondly, by comparing 1960's Ireland against modern Iran he is wrecking an essentially good argument concerning the over heavy influence of the Church in the Irish state over the years. One of my best friends is Iranian (or she would say Persian) and her family fled Iran due to the stifling atmosphere after the revolution there - the social conformity and (at times) lack of a true Christian spirit that characterised some of the Church's actions in Ireland are not in the same ballpark as govt. organised rape squads or extreme torture that prevailed in Iran. It would be better not to use such a fallacious comparision as it weakens the argument instead of advancing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 8, 2009 22:17:10 GMT
Catholic doctrine clearly teaches that the pope can send people to hell so your point is rather misleading and goes against catholic doctrine.
WTF BA?? Pope Innocent III "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."
Pope Boniface VIII....Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Eugene IV It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II: The "Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" (1964)
.................Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."
'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" was published on 2000-AUG-6 by Cardinal Ratzinger..........Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."
Catechism of the Catholic Church Section 846
1) "...all salvation comes from Christ...through the [Catholic] Church..."
2) "...the [Catholic] Church...is necessary for salvation..."
3) "...Christ ...affirmed...the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door."
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (C.C.C. # 846)
|
|
|
|
Post by Shades40 on Aug 9, 2009 11:59:01 GMT
Who reads the bible? prisoners and not just the ones in jail  |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 9, 2009 18:41:07 GMT
WASP - please show me where in Catholic doctrine the Pope may send people to Hell, the onus is on you to provide the proof if you are going to make such a sweeping claim. As to salvation not been found outside the Catholic Church, ALL Christians (including you WASP!) are considered in communion with the Church but imperfectly, so you too are part of the 'beast of Rome.' We were though in fact discussing the overly harsh monolithic attitudes of people like Archbishop McQuaid, as I stated I would agree with much of the comments in the original article but feel the author shoots himself in the foot with the comparision to Iran, as Iranians or those familar with the situation there will see it's like comparing a street mugger with the Kray Twins. Did the Irish Church behave in teeth grittingly emberassing ways and in ways that were not reflective of Christ-like behaviour - oh yes indeed it did, those who try to pretend nothing happened, or 'sure it's all just fellas leaping on the gravy train for payouts' are been naive. But the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints and the behaviour of even a large number of individuals is not what determines the central truths of Christianity or else we'd all be equally screwed as none of us are particularly lovely individuals when we get right down to it if we look at our inner hearts thoroughly. I don't think WASP you'd agree with the Hitchen's quote about religion of belief in God been totally uneccesary. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 9, 2009 20:29:23 GMT
I claimed nothing, its catholic doctrine. In pronouncing the anathema, the Pope wears special vestments. He is assisted by twelve priests holding lighted candles. Calling on the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Pope pronounces a solemn ecclesiastical curse. He ends by declaring, "We judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate". The priests reply, "Fiat!" (Let it be done!) and throw down their candles.
According to the 1913 edition of the "Catholic Encyclopedia," when the Catholic Church anathematizes someone, the Pope ritually puts curses on them and sentences them to hell. The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says that the anathema ritual is "well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance". Canon 1312 says that penal sanctions can include depriving people of "some spiritual or temporal good". Spiritual goods are things which are necessary to get to Heaven.
Samples Anathemas from the Council Trent
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX
“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII
“If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Third Session CANON VI.
(Anathema condemning anyone that rejects the sacrament of confession)
“If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema. “ Fourteenth Session CANON II
(Anathemas condemning anyone that rejects the seven sacraments)
“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON I
“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not in deed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON IV
(Anathema condemning anyone that rejects baptism is necessary for salvation)
“If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON V
(Anathema condemning anyone that rejects infant baptism)
“If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON XIII
Never have been and never will be part of the beast of Rome.
I would say with thousands forced through abusive regimes, many many abused both physically and sexually including those with special needs, many murdered in unidentified graves etc etc it is very relevant of the comparison between Iran and Ireland.
Agreed.
A hospital for sinners??? Where on earth did you get that from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 9, 2009 21:25:41 GMT
Did you get all the lot you are quoting from Mary Ann Collins or one of the sites that quotes her by any chance as it seems most familar. If you are not part of the 'beast of Rome' in at least some indirect sense then you must have used a time machine to discover Christianity as all the major world Churches stem from either the Orthodox or Catholic Churches directly or indirectly. That's just simple fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 9, 2009 23:21:32 GMT
This was part of a project I done a few years back and yes some is from the former nun and other sites but some is also from the Catholic encylopedia and other catholic websites.
Err no mate, the early church was not the catholic church and was nothing like the catholic chuch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 10, 2009 21:24:45 GMT
You do know many Catholics and Protestants have severe doubts Mary Ann Collins is even a real person?
The early Church was not like the Catholic Church - what no bishops? No belief in a hierachy? No belief in the Virgin birth and respect for the Blessed Virgin? No apostolic succession....
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 10, 2009 22:05:42 GMT
Well I believe her to be genuine and I have received numerous emails from her. That aside debating whether or not she is a real person by those who doubt her is simply a difflection from what she is saying.
What has any of the above got to do with me being part of the beast of Rome (your words)?? The devil believes in Jesus so does that make his followers like the early church also?? I think the Book of Acts describe the early Church quite well such as “breaking bread from house to house.”
Here is how the Apostle Paul described the kinds of
things that he had to endure, as a leader in the early Church.
“Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.”
(2 Corinthians 11:24-27)
After Constantine’s “conversion,” all of a sudden being Christian resulted in power, prestige, and promotion instead of persecution. The Bishop of Rome was supported by the military might, political power, and wealth of the Roman Emperor.
This was the birth of the Roman Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 11, 2009 18:37:17 GMT
Hey hup it's the Constantine becoming Christian was the start of the Roman Catholic Church myth again...yawn... straight out of 'we make it up as we go along about the kafflicks...'. class. I'm sure you really believe this sincerely WASP but I advise you to do some research into this area of history as it doesn't quite reflect the complexity. There's no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church officially - I am a member of the Latin Catholic rite which is one amongst 22 other rites collectively called Catholic. That even some Catholic schools/hospitals/hospices etc. use the term is a mark of how insidiously what was originally intended as a pjerotative term has crept into general usage. At the time of Constantine the four other Patriachs were of more importance than they later became and the Pope was senior in honour but the position vis a vis his relationships with the other Patriachs was complicated and as the centuries grew due to bad blood on all sides that led to the Eastern Orthodox breaking away from the Catholic Church (although they'd say it was the other way around) and even so they still do not deny that the Pope was seen as first among equals, but they felt that the western Church did not understand differing traditions in the Eastern Church such as different dates for Easter, different traditions for Priests, monks etc. Btw you can see an echo of that in Irish and British history if you look up the synod of Whitby where the Irish clergy who followed Eastern Customs clashed with the British clergy who supported Latin customs and teaching -ironically perhaps in light of later history.
Not only Paul endured such things - I can give you lots of examples of some horrific deaths via martyrdom from my wife's Church and the Catholic Church within Russia (small as the latter always has been), including an Archbishop been crucified upside down on his own Church's doors for protesting about the executions of people judged to be 'enemies of the state.'
Ironically perhaps WASP rediscovering my own faith has made me question some of the verities of Irish republicanism and the emphasis on violence often seen in it's history and whether that's compatible with been a Christian, which may suprise you I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 11, 2009 19:43:08 GMT
BA I never had no problem with you having no faith nor do I have a problem with you having your faith now, my points on Constantine are valid and is far from a myth, perhaps you should look up many other sites to give you a better picture. The present catholic church is far from the one true church, it has the opposite of Jesus's teachings with its vast wealth etc. You keep using church traditions to back your points and I have no interest in the traditions of men, I am not your judge, nor you mine and when we both meet our maker we have to answer to him, not your priest, not my minister, not any King or Queen and not the pope, just God. This is why I oppose basing my faith on what men think we should do to suit their own unbiblical beliefs.
I was brought up Presbyterian but if you asked me about what I believed then you wouldnt have got much of an answer because I never paid much heed to church, I simply couldnt wait till it was over and tried every excuse in the book to avoid going and I stopped going for years. Some of the beliefs that I did have would have contradicted biblical teachings but I did not discover this until I tried to find out more about what various faiths were.
A few personal experiences had me go in search of the answers my heart desired so I never based my research on wanting to prove my beliefs were right because some of my beliefs were far from right. It would be better taking my faith as a near non starter and a neutral due to my limited knowledge and from my research I do not know how anyone could be R.Catholic, charasmatic, follow Billy GHraham etc etc if they read the bible. No church is perfect but if you want to go further from the Lord then follow those mentioned above along with a whole host of others.
I am hoping to return to church again in the next week or so, part of my abscence is laziness where I cannot be bothered but for the biggest part it was finding a church that was as clsoe to my beliefs as possible and I am still learning. I have no interest in relying on or comparing the works of man that are unbiblical or contradict biblical teaching. Using a church or comparing a church to show that this or that was common so it in someway justifies your beliefs because these churchs etc had similar is of absolutely no interest to me apart from learning about the foolishness of man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 24, 2009 9:52:14 GMT
Who reads the bible? prisoners and not just the ones in jail And aul people. |
|
