Wednesday, 29 July 2015

THREE HANDLES FOR THE BISHOP !

THREE HANDLES FOR THE BISHOP!

16 comments:

  1. Handles are fine but what do they hold ....knife fork collection plate.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the absence of comment or explanation I don't know the meaning or intention in this. The title with exclamation mark suggests it's in some was mocking the bishop.
    I'm quite okay with mocking bishops or indeed anyone in a prominent public position for it helps modify any grandiose self perceptions, .....well, some of them!
    But I see and understand the picture as someone signing in interpretation of what +Noel is saying for the benefit of the hearing impaired reliant on signing to understand verbal communication.
    I do hope there was no intention to mock disability and it is simply a lack of awareness.
    MourneManMichael

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely no intention to mock the disabled. My own little sister was disabled.

      Someone from the diocese sent the pic to the Blog as an "illustration" of the relationship between bishop and at least some clergy.

      Delete
  3. The picture comes from the Down and Connor web site. Is there no one checking what goes on the web site for material that is open to misinterpretation? PP.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whoever sent that picture to this Blog is being very disloyal to the True Church, His Lordship the Bishop and the Clerical Fraternity. With so many enemies out there we all need to work very closely together to oppose our enemies. TE. Belfast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you agree TE that being over protective has close links with insecurity. As Telly Savallas (Kojak) sang with a lollipop in his mouth-if a picture paints 10000 words....

      Delete
  5. Dear Anonymous TE,
    While of course you are well entitled to an opinion, I hope your exhortation does not induce anybody to endorse or follow your perceptions. By that I mean: that there is a "True Church", and that those outside it are to be "opposed" as enemies.
    Your comment suggests a wholly simplistic subserviant indoctrinated and brainwashed from childhood world view, where, as you say, the bishops are "Lordships", lording over a clerical elitist fraternity, which the "faithful" laity simply follow blindly.
    As for one true church: Joseph's coat had many colours.
    MourneManMichael

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr M M M , Your comment smacks of a la carte Catholicism and relativeism.

      There is Truth and the absence of truth.

      There may be many would be churches but the Catholic Church is coloured gold. The others are pale initations.

      Delete
    2. Jesus was not a Roman Catholic nor did he refer to the scribes or Pharisees as Lord.

      Delete
  6. "Pale initations": I like it!
    By the way I follow no a la carte religion of any kind.
    I am a humanist and have no belief in any god or gods, and certainly not the belief system that is christianity or any specific branch of its adherents.
    I suggest you google humanism, read it with an open mind, and then consider just how unreasonable, unrealistic, improbable and frankly unbelieveable are the core beliefs of christianity.
    In saying this, I have no intention of denigrating those aspects of religions which urge that everyone follows the 'golden rule'. (Do to others as you would be done by)
    And yes I acknowledge that the imperatives of religions do contribute to, dare I say, 'enforcing' good behaviour, and it provides comfort and comradeship for many.
    But none of the beneficial spin-offs from religions serve to provide any proof of their central deist beliefs in a personal god.
    Indeed much arguement can be made of the negative spin-offs of religion, citing it as probably the most divisive influence causing the majority of the world's current aggressive hostilities.
    MourneManMichael

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose an argument for a personal God might be that only a person could replicate persons. Heard on RTE the other day that an earth like planet has been identified....religion demands faith and I believe Christianity has the J factor

      Delete
  7. Again I ask you, do you ask permission to use the private and personal images of individual people on this blog? Why do you ignore reasonable questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The picture above was a public picture, taken in a public place where tens of thousands gather at any one time. The picture was also published on the Internet.

      A bishop is a public person in the public arena as is a priest.

      What is your problem?

      Maybe you would prefer the old days in Ireland when the Roman Catholic Church appointed public censors to ban newspapers, magazines and books that they did not approve of?

      Delete
    2. Well said Pat.
      I can but assume that he's just one of those decrepit oul fellows who still thinks of RC bishops as lords and masters on some elevated plane from the ordinary man!
      MMM.

      Delete
  8. No answer to the question, typical! You have no permission and you don't care, you have no respect for the privacy of individuals public or otherwise. That awful organisation in your view called the Church receives written permission for any image it uses, including clergy, public though they may be in your mind. Many people do not give such permission for fear of their image being misused, being used for bullying purposes etc! Start showing a little, even a little respect please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I say the image above was in the public arena and republishing - albeit in a satirical manner - does not amount to bullying. I suspect you are grinding your own axe on this one.

      Delete