The Pope tees off on NeoLibs

Originally posted by no1marauder
As to the issue of indulgences, I'll assuming you're just ignorant (a pretty solid bet 100% of the time). The RCC has never, ever claimed that people can "buy" salvation. Wiki has a good article that I'm sure you won't read. But it's rather clear:

An indulgence thus does not forgive the guilt of sin, nor does it release from the eternal punishment which ...[text shortened]... rch doctrine associates with unforgiven mortal sins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence[/b]

"The temporal punishment that follows sin is thus undergone either during life on earth or in purgatory. In this life, as well as by patient acceptance of sufferings and trials, the necessary cleansing from attachment to creatures may, at least in part, be achieved by turning to God in prayer and penance and by works of mercy and charity"

As we can see, the Catholic church taught that all one had to do to evade suffering in this life and the next temporal holding place, whatever that means, one need only fork over dollars.

They were the first TV evangelists it appears.

No where in scripture can this be justified.

Originally posted by whodey
I see no one being punished for these crimes.

All I see is a lot of talk.

Those that are in a position of authority have a duty to see that wrong doers are punished.

If not, then it is as good as giving their consent and approval.

You see what you want to see. Many have been punished for their crimes. Surely you know this and are simply repeating this lie for propaganda purposes. This is shameful.

Originally posted by whodey
"The temporal punishment that follows sin is thus undergone either during life on earth or in purgatory. In this life, as well as by patient acceptance of sufferings and trials, the necessary cleansing from attachment to creatures may, at least in part, be achieved by turning to God in prayer and penance and by works of mercy and charity"

As we can see, th ...[text shortened]...
They were the first TV evangelists it appears.

No where in scripture can this be justified.

🙄🙄

Linking such an article to a stubborn moron like you was obviously a waste of time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You see what you want to see. Many have been punished for their crimes. Surely you know this and are simply repeating this lie for propaganda purposes. This is shameful.

So you are on record that the Catholic church has appropriatly handled their pedophilia scandels?

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄🙄

Linking such an article to a stubborn moron like you was obviously a waste of time.

You are making a fool of yourself

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26448075

Pope Francis has strongly defended the Roman Catholic Church's record on tackling sexual abuse by priests.

In a rare interview with an Italian newspaper, the Pope said "no-one else has done more" to root out paedophilia.

He said the Church had acted with transparency and responsibility, yet it was the only institution to have been attacked.

Last month, the UN strongly criticised the Vatican for failing to stamp out child abuse and for allowing cover-ups.

'Shocking' statistics

In his interview with Corriere della Sera published on Wednesday, Pope Francis said: "The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility.




"No-one else has done more. Yet the Church is the only one to have been attacked."


Catholic Church abuse scandals
■ Germany - A priest, named only as Andreas L, admitted in 2012 to 280 counts of sexual abuse involving three boys over a decade
■ United States - Revelations about abuses in the 1990s by two Boston priests, Paul Shanley and John Geoghan, caused public outrage
■ Belgium - The bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, resigned in April 2010 after admitting that he had sexually abused a boy for years
■ Italy - The Catholic Church in Italy admitted in 2010 that about 100 cases of paedophile priests had been reported over 10 years
■ Ireland - A report in 2009 found that sexual and psychological abuse was "endemic" in Catholic-run industrial schools and orphanages for most of the 20th century

Q&A: Child abuse scandal

The Pope, who will celebrate his first anniversary of his election later this month, also praised his predecessor, Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, for changing the Church's attitude towards predatory priests, saying he had been "very courageous".

He also questioned the focus of the debate, saying: "The statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also clearly show that the great majority of abuses are carried out in family or neighbourhood environments."

A UN report into the abuse scandals published last month called on the Pope to "immediately remove" all clergy who were known or suspected child abusers.

It also accused the Vatican of systematically placing the "preservation of the reputation of the Church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims" - something it has strenuously denied.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) said the Holy See should open its files on members of the clergy who had "concealed their crimes" so that they could be held accountable by the authorities.

Pope Francis has set up a commission to investigate sex crimes committed by priests and to care for victims, but so far he has made very few public comments about the scandals that have rocked the Church in recent years.

No 'big changes'
A new weekly magazine devoted entirely to the life of Pope Francis has been launched in Italy
The leader of an Italian group representing victims of clerical sex abuse claimed there had been little action from the Vatican and said there had been no "big changes" under Pope Francis.

Francesco Zanardi of Rete L'Abuso, told the BBC: "The cases of child abuse by priests continue to happen, all around Italy, and of the cases that we've denounced we have seen no results."

"The Pope may make this statement, but then the Vatican doesn't reply to the UN or impose the obligation that bishops should denounce accused priests in the courts and not deal with the cases internally."

The founder of the US-based website, BishopAccountability.org, Terence McKiernan, was more direct in his criticism, complaining that the Pope had not merely failed to apologise to the children who had been abused but had not even expressed sorrow.

"It is astonishing, at this late date, that Pope Francis would recycle such tired and defensive rhetoric," he said.

Pope Francis also used the interview with Corriere della Sera to admit that he was uncomfortable with the depiction of him as a "superman" who leaves the Vatican at night to feed the homeless.

He told the newspaper: "The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps calmly and has friends like everyone else. A normal person."

His comments came as a new weekly magazine devoted entirely to his life, called Il Mio Papa - or My Pope - hit the news-stands in Italy.

So apparently I know the Pope is full of poo, the BBC knows it, and the UN knows it.

Everyone knows it except Marauder and the only reason he refuses to see it is because the Pope is a left winged nutter like himself.

What amazes me is the ability of these priests to evade the proper authorities all over the world. How much power the Catholic church must have in governments across the globe. I guess being a mouth peice for governments around the world for various causes of redistribution is payment enough for them.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Romans Christianized Gaul and Britain in the first few centuries CE.

St Patrick Christianized Ireland, casting the Druidic snakes out, in the name of Rome and the Pope, in the fifth century.

[i]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

When Germain [b]commissioned by the Holy See proceeded to Britain to combat the erroneous teachings of ...[text shortened]... 6.

Which centuries did you have in mind where the "Celtic Church" Christianized pagan Europe?[/b]

Thank you for your authoritative historical source from which this quote might give enough of an impression:

It was on 26 March, Easter Sunday, in 433, that the eventful assembly was to meet at Tara, and the decree went forth that from the preceeding day the fires throughout the kingdom should be extinguished until the signal blaze was kindled at the royal mansion. The chiefs and Brehons came in full numbers and the druids too would muster all their strength to bid defiance to the herald of good tidings and to secure the hold of their superstition on the Celtic race, for their demoniac oracles had announced that the messenger of Christ had come to Erin. St. Patrick arrived at the hill of Slane, at the opposite extremity of the valley from Tara, on Easter Eve, in that year the feast of the Annunciation, and on the summit of the hill kindled the Paschal fire. The druids at once raised their voice. "O King", (they said) "live for ever; this fire, which has been lighted in defiance of the royal edict, will blaze for ever in this land unless it be this very night extinguished." By order of the king and the agency of the druids, repeated attempts were made to extinguish the blessed fire and to punish with death the intruder who had disobeyed the royal command. But the fire was not extinguished and Patrick shielded by the Divine power came unscathed from their snares and assaults. On Easter Day the missionary band having at their head the youth Benignus bearing aloft a copy of the Gospels, and followed by St. Patrick who with mitre and crozier was arrayed in full episcopal attire, proceeded in processional order to Tara. The druids and magicians put forth all their strength and employed all their incantations to maintain their sway over the Irish race, but the prayer and faith of Patrick achieved a glorious triumph. The druids by their incantations overspread the hill and surrounding plain with a cloud of worse than Egyptian darkness. Patrick defied them to remove that cloud, and when all their efforts were made in vain, at his prayer the sun sent forth its rays and the brightest sunshine lit up the scene. Again by demoniac power the Arch-Druid Lochru, like Simon Magus of old, was lifted up high in the air, but when Patrick knelt in prayer the druid from his flight was dashed to pieces upon a rock.

I shall bookmark this site for any further historical research I may need on this forum.

Originally posted by finnegan
Thank you for your authoritative historical source from which this quote might give enough of an impression:
[quote]It was on 26 March, Easter Sunday, in 433, that the eventful assembly was to meet at Tara, and the decree went forth that from the preceeding day the fires throughout the kingdom should be extinguished until the signal blaze was kindled at t ...[text shortened]... /quote] I shall bookmark this site for any further historical research I may need on this forum.

Dont forget the part where St Patrick destroys Crom (yes, THAT Crom*) with his shillelagh.

I've always thought St Patrick's fire might have been the result of sodium or potassium in water...it burns like that. Alchemy was invented by Mary the Jewess and I suspect many miracles were alchemical in nature.

I missed your answer by the way. Which centuries did you mean?

*From Robert Howard's Queen of the Black Coast:

[Crom] dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Dont forget the part where St Patrick destroys Crom (yes, THAT Crom*) with his shillelagh.

I've always thought St Patrick's fire might have been the result of sodium or potassium in water...it burns like that. Alchemy was invented by Mary the Jewess and I suspect many miracles were alchemical in nature.

I missed your answer by the way. Which ...[text shortened]... he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?[/i]

I missed your answer by the way. Which centuries did you mean?

The contest between Roman and Irish Christianity can be placed in the sixth to the ninth centuries. You will not get a fair account of the Irish Church from a Catholic website.

Irish writing in its early Christian era continues many traditions from the oral culture of the Irish bards. Indeed, Patrick and others did great service by enabling written records to be made of many traditional poems belonging to the pagan times. The bards loved to attribute fantastical feats to the old heroes and the Irish monks adopted comparable tactics in their accounts of the saints, which of course were plentiful. That is a trademark of old Irish story telling.

We do not know how historically correct Patrick is but we do know there was a dominant figure who may as well be named Patrick as any other name. We also know that before his mission to Ireland, there were successful missions by St Ciaran of Saighir and Ossory, St Ailbe of Emly, St Ibat of Beg Erin and St Declan of Ardmore, all of whom were still around. Nor was the conversion of the Irish complete when Patrick is thought to have died.

Roman Christianity has been described as "urban and political." Ireland had no towns and everyone farmed to live. The extended family and a tradition of cattle raiding was the basis for political life. So while Patrick certainly established a Christian organisation on Roman lines, the reality was that Ireland's bishops were nothing like the Roman model, but lived quiet rural lives amidst self sufficient and small communities. Far more significant was the development of monasteries, which became centres of learning, and solitary hermits, often with a fondness for travelling both within and beyond Ireland. When the Vikings reached Iceland they found it occupied by Irish monks and hermits who fled and possibly finally settled in North America.

It was 563 when St Columba established the monastery at Iona in Scotland and commenced the conversion of the Picts, and 635 when Oswald gave the island of Lindisfarne on the coast of Northumberland for St Aidan to establish a famous monastery and set about converting the North of (what is now) England. Both became famous centres of learning of course. So with Augustine at the same time working on converting the South of (what is now) England, the two rival versions of Christianity met up in the centre of the island when the pagan king Penda of Mercia was killed in 654, having their critical showdown in the Council of Whitby.

St Columbanus of Luxeuil was the first of may Irish emissaries taking Irish ideas into Europe. When he came into serious conflict with the bishops, he was unexpectedly protected by Pope Gregory, who was fond of the monastic tradition, and eventually the Irish monks were absorbed successfully into the Benedictine order.

It was Vikings who destroyed the old Irish monasteries, driving a generation of learned Irish scholars and monks to Europe, where Charlemagne welcomed many of them as an asset to his secular regime. But the real end to Irish Christianity came with the Anglo-Norman invasion and a long struggle which reduced Ireland to a colony and, in that context, fully imposed the Roman model of church organisation.

I may get out an account of the main differences between Irish and Roman Christianity another time. It's on page 164 of a 1981 book by Katherine Scherman, "The Flowering of Ireland." The key point is that the Irish saw Rome as the source of their conversion: there was no suggestion of obedience. None.

English Christianity as practised in St Augustine's territory was the direct child of Rome. By the seventh century the Roman church, following the reforming dictates of Pope Gregory I, had become a centralized, strongly hierarchical institution demanding absolute conformity of thought and deed. Its rituel was rigid, its standards of obedience to a central organization exacting. No taint of heresy was tolerated and freedom of thought was discouraged. This tight knit establishment was necessary to the proper functioning of the ecclesiastical empire that had in a spiritual sense replaced the military and civil empire of the Romans.

In Ireland, untouched by Rome, Christianity had grown up outside these rigid boundaries, as had the Irish Celts themselves; the island's creed harked back to an earlier Christianity, at once more austere and more tolerant. There had never been fear in Ireland, as on the continent, that heresy might be the back door to heathen practices - because there was no fear of heathen practices. In Ireland there was no attempt at centralization, no dictation of thought, no persecution for slight differences in rituel, entire freedom of action existed for every monastery in relation to every other (although the strictest obedience obtained within the walls). Irish Christianity was pure, spiritual, intensely personal, dedicated only to the absolute word of God. Rome's was materialistic, tightly organized, intolerantly conformist. Ireland might have continued along her own road, forgotten and harmless like an anchorite immured in a desert cave, but the Irish would not have it so. Their country and their beliefs might have been out of the mainstream, but they themselves were very much in it, bearing their message of pure spirituality to barbarians and Roman Christians alike; ready to fight for it - indeed, eager to fight, like their own heroes of ancient times.

And herein lay the conflict. Ireland owed allegiance to Rome only as the original source of her conversion; otherwise there was respect but no abject obedience. Subservience had never been a Celtic trait. The ancient ways of the Irish clergy - their asceticism, their love of nature, their instinct towards martyrdom, their uncomplicated acceptance of the Scriptures - were outmoded on the continent and even considered suspect, particularly when coupled with observances of the ritual that were different from those practised by decree from Rome. No one could accuse the Irish of heresy as there were no truer Christians in all of Europe in their time. But the slight differences in observance became a focus for the vast, basic vexation. It was not the people who objected; on the contrary, the generous and purehearted Irish missionaries were loved everywhere by high and low alike. It was the establishment that was galled by these old-fashioned, conservative, exasperatingly positive Celtic saints. Too outspokenly virtuous, they provoked feelings of guilt.

Not cut and paste but typed with my own fair hand from the source mentioned in my last post, pages 166, 167.

Originally posted by finnegan
.... for centuries, the British isles enjoyed a Celtic Christianity which held no concept of popes or bishops or parishes, and it was from here that much of Europe was recovered for Christianity after a long period of paganism. The political intervention by which Celtic Christianity was pushed aside in the Synod of Whitby 664, to make way for the Roman ve ...[text shortened]... a triumph for a political Church at the expense of a more authentic ancient religious tradition.

This is obviously wrong - particularly its first sentence - and corrected after referring to a book as quoted. I do not propose to waste time trying to defend this post but it is worth acknowledging the error. For subsequent posts I made the (wise) decision to check some sources. I think I am now back on track.

The Church organisation was not in line with the Roman model because there were no Irish towns until the Vikings established theirs along the coast. Monasteries previously provided the first and for a long time the only significant population centres in Ireland and these operated outside the structure of bishops, with full autonomy. That does not mean there was "no concept" of bishops and parishes - Patrick did establish them. It is just that they did not operate on Roman lines - it was not possible. So when imposed by the Anglo-Norman invaders, as a part of their administrative machine, such a hierarchical structure was new and an alien imposition.

Similarly, the role of Irish missions cannot be given such a sweeping scope as my post implied. I had to remind myself of that history after typing the claim. See my more recent posts. Mea culpa. Mea Maxima culpa. However it is amusing to note that significant missionary effort was directed not only at pagans and barbarians, but at insipid and materialistic Roman Christians. That is why bishops were enraged and Gregory the Great sympathetic for example.

Of course no greater evidence of the clash between the Irish and Roman Churches must be when the only English pope, Adrian IV, in 1154, gave Ireland to the Plantagenet king Henry II for the good of the immortal souls of the Irish, so that Henry could enforce a reorganisation of the Irish church on Roman lines. By this time the Irish monasteries were largely wrecked by corruption, and there was a reform process in hand under Irish control, but led by bishops in the Viking towns, who were associated with the English Church at Canterbury and not the Irish Church. Henry was using this as a pretext but the Pope and English bishops were very much available for the pretext. This led shortly to the invasion by Strongbow.