Monday, 21 August 2017

BISHOP MEEHAN'S MASS


YESTERDAY AT 12 NOON AT THE ORATORY IN LARNE BISHOP MARY BRIDGET MEEHAN AND HER PRIESTLY ASSOCIATE MARY TERESA CELEBRATED A WONDER EUCHARIST FOR THOSE WHO HAD GATHERED WITH THEM.

The Eucharist was moving, dignified, uplifting and we all left afterwards touched by God and his/her Holy Spirit.


 The Eucharistic text which Bridget and Mary Teresa used was the one used in their US communities by THE ASSOCIATION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC WOMEN PRIESTS and therefore it was different.

On paper it seemed strange but when it was celebrated - along with chosen readings and music - it was wonderful.

The Eucharist was attended by regular Oratory goers and by a number of other interested parties.

One man present was a Presbyterian man called Graham Saunderson who has a dedicated ministry to truck drivers and their families - called Glory Road Ministeries.

From left: Bishop Bridget, Mary Teresa, Joan and Graham Saunderson.
The main points that Bishop Bridget made in her homily was:

1. God's all-embracing love for all his children regardless of gender, race, denomination,  orientation etc.

2. That the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests is NOT LEAVING the Church - but LEADING the Church.

3. She recalled Pope Francis' recent decision to set up a commission to study on Women Deacons.

Image result for pope francis with a woman

4. She told us of a long meeting two of her women priest colleagues had with one of Pope Francis' senior advisers in Rome and their later attendance at a papal Mass where they were given places of honour and received Holy Communion.

BARCELONA:

During the Eucharist we prayed especially for all the dead and injured in Barcelona and all their family and friends. 





I have agreed with the ordination of women for 20 years.

Yesterday's experience copper fastened me in the belief that not only is it right and that GOD WANTS IT

BUT - THAT IS COMING.


SNIPPETS FROM LARNE HOMILY




BELFAST TELEGRAPH



MONDAY AUGUST 21 2017


Rebel female bishop on Northern Ireland crusade to recruit women into Catholic priesthood.


By Suzanne Breen



August 21 2017



A female Catholic bishop excommunicated by the Vatican is in Northern Ireland on a recruitment drive to expand her movement of women priests.



Bridget Mary Meehan said five women who believe they have a vocation had come forward in the Republic and she hoped for a similar number on this side of the border.



"We have 250 women priests and 11 bishops but I'm the only Irish-born one and I would love to change that," she said. "I ordained a female priest in Scotland in 2009, which was very exciting, but my dream is to come home next year to ordain women in Ireland.



"I believe our movement is in harmony with everything Pope Francis stands for in wanting a more open and inclusive Church."



The women, who belong to the US-based Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests (ARCWP), are defying the Vatican's ban on female clergy.



Bishop Meehan stressed that although she had been excommunicated, she still saw herself as part of the mainstream Church.



"As an Irish Catholic, Catholicism is in my DNA," she said.



"This isn't about leaving the Church, it's about leading it. This is about moving the Church towards equality and justice and healing the wounds of centuries of sexism."



She yesterday said Mass at the Oratory, the church of  Bishop Pat Buckley in Larne. He branded opposition to women priests as "sexism dressed up with theology".



Born in Coolkerry, Co Laois, Meehan was ordained a priest in 2006 and a bishop three years later. The 69-year-old currently ministers in Florida.



Her family support her stance.



"My late father Jack Meehan was 82 when I was ordained. He was very proud of me. He had been a dance band leader in the 1940s and he played music at Masses which I celebrated," she said.



Bishop Meehan said being branded "a white witch" and facing other insults didn't bother her.



"I grew up in a conservative Catholic tradition so I see those criticisms as part of the journey we're all on," she said.



She rejected the Vatican's argument that women couldn't be priests because the 12 Apostles were male. "The risen Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene, not to the Apostles, and called on her to announce the good news of Christianity. Mary Magdalene was the Apostle to the Apostles," she said.



The ARCWP has significantly expanded from 2002 when seven women were ordained priests on a ship on the River Danube.



The organisation insists its ordinations are valid because the male bishop ordaining the first female bishops has "apostolic succession within the Catholic Church".



Bishop Meehan was excommunicated in 2007, but insisted: "Our actions are justified because we are disobeying an unjust law. No one can cancel my baptism - it's equal to that of any bishop, cardinal or Pope."



Pope Francis has said the Church is unlikely to lift its ban on female priests but he has set up a commission to investigate whether women could be ordained as deacons, giving them the authority to marry couples and baptise babies, but not to celebrate Mass.



While Bishop Meehan sees him as "moving in the right direction", Bishop  Buckley is less optimistic. "Even if Francis wanted change, he is surrounded by a conservative cabal who will prevent it," he said.



"The battle for women priests will be far harder than that for married priests. Opposition isn't just in the Vatican, it's extensive at a grassroots level."



Bishop Meehan urged women who have a vocation to contact her at sofiabmm@aol.com or arcwp.org



Belfast Telegraph





NOTICE:

I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO PUBLISH COMMENTS ABOUT THIS TOPIC ON TODAY'S BLOG AND PEOPLE'S GENUINE VIEWS ON IT.

BUT I WILL NOT BE PUBLISHING ABUSIVE OR BELITTLING VIEWS OF WOMEN, WOMEN PRIESTS OR OF BISHOP MEEHAN AND HER PRIESTLY COLLEAGUES.

72 comments:

  1. Thst's fine Pat. No printing of abusive language i5f any one, irrespective of their views. I hope you will now practice what you "may" have learned yesterday. So, can we now expect that you'll refrain immediately from your constant denigration of Priests and Bishops who have real names? Can we, for once, be treated to respect for our views as priests without name calling, without being judged, co drmned and executed here by vile, poisonous and hate filled language, not necessarily by you, but many bloggers, though encouraged by you. In this "new spirit" pleade do not allow Magna Carta and other nadty minded people hijack your blog with unacceptable bigotry and nastiness, which in many cases is an incitement to violence and hatred against priests. Also, if these women have displayed respect, genuine reflection, prayer, dialogue and goodness to all, I hope and pray that this same spirit will prevail here. This forum, as I've said before, could be very fruitful in seeking renewal for all Catholic seekers of truth, but only if the qualities of respect, compassion and an end to childish name calling ceases..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MourneManMichael21 August 2017 at 10:11

      I agree with the gist of your comment Anon @ 07:46.
      Pat, now might be an opportune time to say that henceforth you will not be publishing ANY 'ad hominem' derogatory or abusive comments. Contrary or negative expressions of opinion are fine, but of late I've seen far too much abusive hostility adding nothing to honest exchange of views.
      MMM

      Delete
    2. 07:46, what you call 'bigotry and nastiness' by me are legitimate points of view. When all is said and done, you simply don't want these views published because, as a priest (presumably) you cannot tolerate dissent, such is your own arrogance and bigotry. That intolerance is typical of the history of the institutional Roman Catholic Church, and it has always ended in violence against dissenters. Often that violence was physical, but, in more recent times, it has become the violence of 'gagging' people who do not share your point of view.

      As for hijacking this blog would you ever 'cop on'? I contribute to the blog, like any other commentor. Are they, too, attempting to 'hijack' the blog? No? So why single me out? Is it because you dislike (or even hate) my anti-clerical points of view? We both know it is, you hypocrite!

      Yes, I am anti-clerical, deeply so. Roman Catholic priests have much to account for morally: they (and they alone) have damaged (and continue to damage) the assembly founded by Christ through their pride, vanity and arrogance...such as you expressed in your post.

      I loathe Roman Catholic priesthood (not individual priests), because it is an obscene travesty of what Jesus envisioned for his assembly.

      The reason this assembly been so severely (some might say 'irreparably') damaged by people like you is that people like me remained silent, out of instilled deference to the clergy. Those days are over. Get used to criticism, priest, for it is what you deserve.

      Delete
    3. MC, this is a good defence of your position.

      Try and answer your critics without calling them for everything :-)

      Delete
    4. If you are so big and brave, MC, why haven't you the guts to tell the whole story and stop hiding behind anonymity?

      Spit it all out and then people might indeed understand you better and where you are coming from?

      That being said, you should at least have the humility to acknowledge that your negative experiences that have led you to have this "loathing" of the priesthood is not the experience of multitudes of others.

      You should also have the humility to accept and understand that you are not infallible and your (over the top) opinions need to be challenged and tempered by other more objective and measured views.

      You should be open to the possibility that your highly subjective, emotive opinions are not the "be all and end all" of the matters discussed here.

      No one really objects to you posting. At the end of the day, it is the extreme obnoxiousness and odious manner with which you express your views that people find so off putting. Never mind the institutional church, take a look at your own "violence" towards people here. You do have a tendency to dominate and overpower.

      Wind your neck in a bit and people might take you a bit more seriously and stop writing you off as a ranting and irrational dictator.

      Delete
    5. To poster 14.05

      Thank you for expressing so well what a great number of us are thinking.
      Your ideas are fair and balanced.

      Delete
    6. 14:04, and you dare to chide me while hiding under the same cloak, anonymity?

      Another nominal priest? I swear the hypocrisy of such people as you has made you utterly crass, like your 'spiritual' ancestors, the Pharisees.

      There is only one thing greater than your hypocrisy: your pompous, smug, self-righteousness.

      And you think I'd bear my soul to such as you?

      Delete
    7. First of all, many thanks to Mary below for her thoughtful post which expresses what many of us feel, I do believe.

      Now, Magna Carta, off you go again!

      I am not a "nominal priest" and - no - I certainly do not wish to be subjected to you "bearing" your very ill soul to me. I have more than enough problems - thanks.

      However, you really do need to try and find some way of bringing your "loathing", etc., before God in prayer. Because it is making you - quite frankly - loathsome yourself. I fear, if you are not careful, if you don't get help, it could end up giving you cancer.

      "Pompous, smug, self-righteousness". Hmmmmm. You really do not need to take a long hard look at yourself; for you are, very clearly, projecting, onto everything and everyone, that of which you are most guilty yourself.

      Except of course you are too blind to see it. Take the "plank and splinter" text to your meditation for a while - a good long while, I suggest.

      Delete
    8. 15:29, you do indeed have enough problems of your own. So, for charity's sake, I'll spare you a barbed response.

      Delete
  2. Looks like a good time was had by all. Pity you had to point out about the negativity at the end but I get the point. Irrational negativity smacks of the scribes and pharisees in the Gospel. Leave them to it. Concentrate on the good stuff like this. By their fruits shall you know them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is just a general comment.
    I am just a few years older than Bishop Pat and I'm sure, like me, he remembers the old sins of calumny and detraction. There is much good in Pat Buckley, kindness and understanding of difference but there appears to be a mean side too and, dare I say it, a certain hint of schadenfreude, a delight in others' misfortunes. I read this blog from time to time and was shocked by the revelations of sexual scandals involving priests from my own parish and diocese BUT my immediate reaction is always one of huge sadness for the loneliness and sense of isolation that lies behind it. Like Pat I agree that mandatory celibacy is wrong and cruel. The Church's attitude to sex needs to change in the light of what we now know. Homosexuality is not an 'intrinsic disorder'. Women must be treated with fairness and respect and be allowed a share in the governance of the Church. My God but we women are a patient lot!!
    Pat Buckley, I appeal to your sense of justice and decency and above all ask you to exercise some charity and forbid the nasty personal comments from certain commentors and the naming and shaming of priests on this blog. Yes, hypocrisy is rife in the Church as it is in all institutions but there is a way to challenge, a more Christian way, and the sad thing is that we can all sit here indulging in gossip which destroys the soul and what is good in us. I don't like myself at times for even logging on to this blog but curiosity gets the better of me. ( Am I looking for gossip, I ask myself?) Let's concentrate on more general themes and have less of the personal denigration.
    I also cannot understand why so many here hide behind the label of 'Anonymous'. Apart from anything else it makes follow-up comments confusing. Why hide your name if you are brave enough to put your opinion into writing? What is there to fear? This could be a very useful blog if only a little caution and charity were exercised. I do admire Pat's courage for putting himself out there and for taking a lot of flak. His very name causes blood to boil in many a Parochial House and indeed among ordinary decent parishioners but I wish him well. I understand the need to expose hypocrisy but poison will out eventually. Just let the process of releasing it be done in a more tender and charitable manner.
    Mary V

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary V, thank you for your honesty and constructive criticism.

      I will reflect on all you say.

      But please understand that the institution, the hierarchy and the Clerical Club have played "hard ball" with many over the years and are still at it.

      If you deal with them gently they have a habit of riding rough shod over you.

      We are dealing most of the time with a hard, hard edifice. Sometimes the only thing for them is "the ball and chain".

      As you say there is a big kind, gentle and compassionate side to me. I am inclined to reserve that for the weak and vulnerable.

      I have often tried to approach the institutional Church with that side of me and they responded by getting the boot in.

      Drop into LARNE for a cuppa some day and I will explain more and show you the evidence.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree with Mary's sentiments, very true with openness and a genuine Christian approach.

      I believe you have much more to offer God and her Church Pat, I occasionally visit this blog but I refute the hammering and insulting comments that appear here against others when there down, it's the total opposite to what Jesus taught us, "Love one another."

      Pat I'd love to see you make peace with the Church, nothing perfect in life and the Church is widely included in that, but God willing' it will learn from it's dreadful and Sinful past!

      Best wishes Pat.

      Delete
    3. MournemanMichael21 August 2017 at 15:03

      Thanks for reminding us of the advantages of using a name rather than anonymous. As you say, it makes following comments much easier. Since it was first advocated there have been nearly 400 different names as commentators, some very interesting and humorous , (Tommy from Tallaghfornia,Big Lily,Sadie on the Sofa etc) and I enjoy following individual's comments. And I wonder sometimes about the absence of other's astute comments, like Dalriada D. (On his big chair sipping Bush!)It just makes the site more interesting.

      Delete
  4. So there was no mass at the oratory yesterday
    Was that a first?
    Did you say your mass earlier, Pat?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ANONYMOUS, there was a Mass yesterday celebrated by Bishop Meehan.

      I attended her Mass and she ministered to me.

      The whole congregation, to a man and a woman were happy with yesterday's Mass and applauded Bishop Meehan.

      Delete
    2. I thought Pat said a few days ago that it wouldn't be a Mass but just a breaking of bread and that God would "be where people were gathered" Then other posters enquired if there wasn't going to be a Mass in the Oratory at all that day. Then Sean Page posted a comment to the effect "it doesn't always have to be a Mass"
      So what changed?

      Delete
    3. For me the words Mass, Eucharist, Breaking of Bread etc mean the same.

      Mass is what we call the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic tradition.

      Delete
    4. PAT, PAT,PAT. You are deluded and in a state of total confusion. What took place yesterday was not A CATHOLIC EUCHARIST OR MASS. Stop confusing and misleading people. This make-up-theology/liturgy is not truly Catholic. You may have prayed beautiful words and participated in a lovely ceremony, BUT it was not CATHOLIC EUCHARIST OR A CATHOLIC MASS. Did you pray for Pope Francis or for Bishop Martin? Please, less of the sham, circus and pretence.....The memory of JESUS deserves respect, honour and reverence not a mushy, self focused anthropology or psychological waffle!!

      Delete
    5. 15.23 Did Jesus celebrate a Roman Catholic Last Supper and pray for Pope Francis. I suggest people see what is essential to Eucharist and see what has been added in later and treat all with respect

      Delete
  5. I think we would be a far healthier church if we all acknowledged that the clergy are as flawed as the laity. I think the problem is that we had these flawed men with god like powers over naïve and vulnerable people. The church is going in the right direction. It is good that all this is coming out. I wish the church would acknowledge that they do not understand sexuality at all. Sex is not the only sin. Bullying and greed are also sins. The balance of power has to be renegotiated between the clergy and the laity. In the UK until the first world war the nobility had a lot of money and power and treated people very badly. All that suddenly evaporated. The same will happen with the church.

    ReplyDelete
  6. She isn't a bishop though is she. So all negative comments on her so called bishop venture are a waste. Funny though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She IS a bishop - consecrated by a Roman Catholic bishop in full communion with Rome.

      Delete
    2. But there have to be certain conditions present for a valid Ordination in Canon Law.
      One of them is that a valid Bishop is there to confer the Ordination
      The second condition is equally important.
      The person to receive Ordination has to fulfil the requirements in full of a potential candidate.
      Now, do your research (as I have) and you will see where the flaws in the Meehan 'ordination' are.

      Delete
    3. Canon Law is man made.

      I am not suggesting that Bridget Meehan fulfilled Canon Law.

      What I am saying is that she is a VALID bishop.

      If Canon Lawyers and others want to argue over papal mandates and "lawfulness" then let them at it.

      Delete
    4. All due respect to you, Pat. Just because Canon Law is "man made" doesn't make it valueless.

      Brigid seems like a very sweet lady and a loving gentle soul. But she is not a bishop or a priest.

      And what took place in the Oratory yesterday may have been a nice service but it was not the Mass/Eucharist/Breaking of Bread/Lord's Supper.

      Delete
    5. I totally disagree with you.

      You are basically you have to have a penis to be a priest or BISHOP.

      Ordination confers a change on the soul / person of the ordained.

      Genitalia are irrelevant to the Grace of ordination.

      Delete
    6. 15.33 Pat people with the above view will never change. There is a CoE parish near us which will not accept female ordained Ministry. They are still part of the diocese and deanery. What they are open to is that this may change in the future. Call it unity in diversity if you wish. As you say a penis and a crosure are not dependant on each other

      Delete
    7. Bridget Mary Meehan ordination ceremony was NOT conducted by a bishop in "full communion with Rome." The presiders at the ceremony were Patricia Fresen, Gisela Forster, and Ida Raming, three women who were whose ordination ceremony was conducted by Rómulo Antonio Braschi, who identifies as an Independent Catholic Bishop, so someone whose as much in communion with Rome as Pat is. Communion is a two-way street. Rome does not accept the validity of the orders of Patricia Fresen, Gisela Forster, and Ida Raming and therefore communion does not exist. To say Bridget May Meehan was ordained by a bishop in full communion with Rome is simply false.

      Delete
    8. Your information is INCOMPLETE and INACCURATE.

      These women were indeed originally consecrated by Bishop Braschi.

      But AFTERWARDS, to have recognised APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION three of them were ordained by a ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP whose name is being withheld, at his request, until after his death.

      He is spoken of as Bishop X.

      Delete
    9. The very fact that the name is being withheld (if it actually happened at all, because as of now we don't actually have any verifiable proof) would seem to suggest that the alleged bishop in question knows that his communion with Rome would be immediately revoked on account of this action, which again goes to prove that any bishop who participated in a ceremony of this sort is automatically not in communion with Rome. As I said, communion is a two-way street. It doesn't work if only one side acknowledges it.

      Delete
  7. I once met a very impressive Passionist nun in a retreat centre. All I could think is what a waste of tremendous talent. She would have made a terrific priest and bishop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's sad that you @ 14.03
      felt that the work of the nun in the retreat centre was a "tremendous waste" of talent.
      We respectfully would beg to differ and assure you that she feels challenged and grateful for the satisfaction her works brings to her and her community. We all hope that work is not underestimated.

      Delete
    2. 14.55
      I think what was ment was that the nuns talent not getting to a wide audience.
      I would never go on retreat, most years most people are lucky to get a couple of weeks holiday with their family

      Delete
    3. 14.03. What do you mean - a tremendous waste of talent. Most nuns feel very fulfilled in their ministry and contribute immensely to the life of the Church and cimmunities.

      Delete
  8. Magna at 11.56. When comment about your vile, nasty humanity is expressed against you, you morph into a more odious and contemptible human being. As a priest, having served to the best of my human ability, with God's grace, for 37 years, with much imperfection and failure, I find your words distasteful, unkind and a mockery of the many, many good priests in ministry. When my father died at a young age leaving my mother widowed with 9 children, the people who were kindest, most supportive and who gave practical help were the priests and religious of my parish, the De La Salle brothers from my boarding school and gentle, kind neighbours.It wasn't so called knowledgeable people like you. You are not a nice person as revealed in your comments. In fact, you pretend to be offended but in truth you are are a hate monger. I challenge you to express publicly to any priest the bigoted, foul mouthed words you carry in your heart. You would not stand for long. You are more than anti clerical. YOU INCITE HATRED OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE.If you were a little calmer, less hateful less full full of angst you might better see beyond your puny mind. A good psychotherapist would gladly help you fathom your irrational angst and emotions! Pat should disallow you, Magna, from further commenting with your horrible, vile and utterly poisonous, repetitive crassness. If you can't accept criticism, you should shut your mouth and keep your toliet chatter where it belongs. You are becoming crerpier in every blog. You must be back on the bottle!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father, I respect you and all good priests.

      I think you should refrain from calling MC names and making him react.

      Given the behaviour of many of OUR clerical colleagues over the years and centuries anti clericalism can be justified.

      Delete
    2. MournemanMichael21 August 2017 at 16:00

      Agree with you there Pat. This ad hominem rant is as unwelcome as the worst of them. Yes MC'S comments can be very forthright, but regularly very apt.
      MMM

      Delete
    3. Pat st 16.38. Reasonable debate, respect and argument are the only way to achieve renewal. Magna has no respect for anyone and primarily uses this forum to spout anti clerical bigotry and hatred. I thought Pat you promised no name calling or abuse on your blog. Stop it immediately and stop justifying Magna Motor Mouth. He is contemptible in so many comments.

      Delete
    4. 17:28, you are another who would stifle free debate.

      My anti-clerical views are entirely reasonable, given the arrogant, dictatorial behaviour of Roman Catholic clergy over the centuries (especially their raping children and the cover-up of these atrocious crimes by fellow-nominal priests, including, and particularly, bishops). I am entitled to these views, whether you like it or not (and, of course, you don't like it, so you try to silence me).

      Frankly, I'm not surprised you want to stifle anti-clerical views, since Roman Catholic clergy in particular would naturally love to keep their shameful history 'under wraps'. And we now know that Roman Catholic clergy are well practised in this dark art.

      You're a nominal priest, too, aren't you? (Sigh)

      Delete
  9. Maybe when you are writing your piece on feminism Pat, you also might also write something about your understanding on the Eucharist.

    I am feeling quite confused with people's argument on the subject.

    Thanks for the consideration

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some of the Dublin Diocesan appointments are out. Any one know of more ?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once more they move around the deck chairs on the Titanic?

      Delete
    2. 16:52 And so what? What has clerical changes got to do with this story?
      Its a gossip blogger you are! Not remotely interested in the true Church.

      Delete
    3. 16.52. You've missed the boat. Dublin appointments out ages ago.....not interesting. You are looking for gossip.

      Delete
  11. But the vitriolic remarks only seem "apt" if you, yourself are very adamantly critical of priests and the Church and very reluctant to give praise and examples of credit where it is due. Where do we see such examples from M Carta? (We don't, because he has never anything good to say about good members of the Church. He probably denies that we even exist!)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pat the good Lady Ms.Meehan has by her actions placed herself outside of the Roman Catholic communion. While she may be well intentioned we know what the road to hell is paved with don't we? The truly great reformers in our tradition are men and women like Francis of Assisi or Catherine of Sienna, they achieved tremendous reforms without sundering the community that is the church. We shouldn't mistake I'll considered agitation as prophetic especially when it leads to division. History is littered with so called reformers whose movements shriveled up and died shortly after them. The real challenge is to bring about change within and that requires humility, wisdom and gentleness of spirit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Church is the Family of God.

      NO ONE can put anyone out of God's Family.

      Delete
  13. Mc's remarks sometimes lack a vital ingredient for Christian dialogue _ Charity, and without Charity St.Paul is clear _ a noisy gong!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have read these posts carefully and have reflected upon them. Bishop Meehan is not a bishop in any meaningful sense of the word, of that there is no doubt. She is a bishop only to her followers and a few others, but she would not be recognised as a bishop by the Church of Rome; by the Anglican Communion and certainly not by the Orthodox Church. I have no doubt that she is a good and sincere person, and following the Lord as best she can, but she is no more a bishop than anyone who decides to be a bishop is a bishop. Anyone can say they are a bishop (in fact many do) but that does not mean they are. The only bishops - or overseers, to give them there correct title - as those who are nominated and consecrated such by the Church; i.e. the Church of Rome, the Anglican Communion, and the Orthodox Church. I hope you don't mind me clearing the matter up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your opinion.

      Others of us totally disagree.

      Delete
  15. I certainly agree with whoever wrote that post at 18:43. A very well expressed statement of what I would imagine most Catholics would believe, and Bishop Pat I speak as a great supporter of yours and how you've suffered. Many of us (and my friends have told me) have felt you have taken a step too far inviting this woman and her partner to your chapel and having a mock mass. We can, and do, accept you as a Bishop, but cannot accept this lady and her friend. Sorry to offend you, but I think you are bang out of order on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well expressed 19.22. Let's hope Pat will not return to his nastiness......and ignoring legitimate Catholic Teachings and Truths.

      Delete
  16. One of my greatest personal struggles to date has been the role of women in the Church; what it is and what it should be.

    I am a 23 year old English woman, who was baptised and raised a Methodist. The local chapel I attended weekly for the first decade of my life, was under the charge of a female Minister, whose sermon's were encouraging and inspiring.

    Nevertheless, I became a Catholic at the age of 16, following the tradition of my maternal family (my Mother was a Catholic, but due to many negative experiences during childhood, had turned away during adulthood). For the first time, I began to question the role of women, and whether they too should be able to pursue a vocation in the priesthood. I attended weekly Mass, and found it difficult to envisage a woman in Father's place, presenting a homily and offering the Eucharist. Conversations with friends educated me on alternative views, with some believing that women can and should have equal religious roles to men, but not the same roles. Others conceded that female religious were able to pursue active ministerial vocations, without needing to affect or change the requirements for ordination.

    During this time, I began to explore my own calling, and spent sometime with a local Church of England diocese, discerning my potential calling to the priesthood. I worked with many female vicars, who were some of the most loving and inspiring Christians I will ever meet. Through intense periods of prayer and reflection, I eventually concluded that God was calling me to remain in the Roman Catholic faith, but to pursue an alternative vocation that would equally allow me to help others in need; I will be commencing my second degree, in Adult Nursing, in just under a month.

    For me, the internal struggle continues: if women priests were ever allowed, I imagine being one of the first to pursue a vocation, but something prevents me from truly being able to see or appreciate the presence of a female priest in the place of 'Father'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your gender-title difficulty could easily be resolved by referring to women Catholic priests as 'Mother'. Yes?

      A female Catholic priest would not be attempting to fulfill 'Father's' role (priesthood is not gender-specific, but has been made so by tradition), but her role as a priest.

      Delete
  17. I attended the Bishop’s mass at Larne, yesterday. It was a simple but profoundly beautiful service – comfortingly familiar yet refreshingly different. It also felt natural and right. Now, I realise I’m using a loaded word when I say ‘felt’ but it’s a word that will have to do for now.

    For those who are getting themselves into a bit of a twist insisting that there was no Mass or Eucharist celebrated at Larne yesterday – you are clearly entitled to your point of view, incidentally a point of view that most of you post behind a cloak of anonymity. Why the anonymity? I believe, and the others who attended The Oratory, yesterday, also believe we did celebrate Mass yesterday and that we partook of a eucharistic feast. You say we didn’t – I say we did. It’s that simple. Spare me the theological arguments against ordaining women. I’m well versed in them and they are tired, redundant and clearly grounded in misogyny rather than the revelation of God.

    These are not women playing at being bishops or priests. They have active ministries to communities that are, admittedly, small but growing. These are intelligent, articulate and prayerful women and they are determined that their voice will be heard and I for one will continue to pray that their prophetic voices will be heard.


    ReplyDelete
  18. This is one of the most beautiful and moving posts I have read on this site Lousie. Thank you. Your struggle sounds very painful indeed, but now you seem to have reached a place of contentment and peace. This is often the result of suffering with integrity. Like you I count many lady priests as friends and esteemed colleagues, but the Roman Catholic Church will not and cannot ordain women to the priesthood as the sacrificial nature of the priesthood as it understands it would not countenance such a move. Besides the relationship with the Orthodox Church would be irreparably destroyed and while the Catholic Church can tolerate the ordination of women in Anglicanism, it will never jeopardise eventual unity with the Orthodox. That would surely happen if any pope admitted women to the sacred priesthood. Now the diaconal ministry is a different thing entirely and I call well envision female deacons within the Roman Rite within the next 25 years.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Very good wishes in your Nursing studies,Louise. What a lovely message from you.. I think you will make a very good nurse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much. Please keep me in your prayers.

      Delete
  20. Seems like an interesting day there Pat.

    I have a serious question and I mean it in all sincerity, 'What is the age of the women she is ordaining?'

    On another note, I doubt that anything will change in the mainstream Catholic Church as Pope Francis is on record as saying what the previous two Popes have said regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood. However the commission established is looking into the ordination of women to the diaconate and that is all.

    However like Pope Benedict XVI I personally see no obstacle to a woman being named a Cardinal, as laity can be Cardinals. I see this as an urgently needed change. Both lay men and women Cardinals.

    I am sure these women are nice and sincere, and I wish them safe travels.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pat. Your ignorance of scripture surprises me. Are you not aware of the advice of Jesus that those who won't listen should be treated as a pagan or a tax collector? And how people were dis fellowshipped in three early community. It is clear that authority can decide who belongs and who does not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 20:25, that scriptural passage you referred to was an insertion by the gospel writer, or a later redaction: they cannot be Jesus' words as they concern excluding people rather than seeking their inclusion in the assembly.

      Delete
    2. How fortunate for us to have an eye witness who can tell us Jesus's actual words and thoughts.

      Delete
    3. 00:02, is sarcasm really your best response?

      I wasn't an 'eye witness' to the creation narratives in Genesis, but I do know that they are not historical records.

      My knowledge derives from biblical scholarship. I shan't ask from where yours derives, because you clearly don't have any.

      Delete
    4. "Biblical scholarship"???? Really indeed!!! Says who? Some old apostate, heretical "professor" no doubt!!

      We Christians believe that the Old and New Testament is God-breathed - the inspired Word of God - revealed by God the Holy Ghost.

      There is not one joy or stroke of that Word that God doesn't will to be there for our salvation. There are people who need to be excluded for the good of the community and to bring them to their senses that they will repent.

      I want to ask too why Pat Buckley is not allowing other arguments answering this Magna Carta person being published??

      Delete
    5. 11:05, 'Magna Carta person'? 'Person'? Does this come from 'the Holy Ghost' (who is the spirit of Love), or from your darkened heart? (A no-brainer, that one.)

      As for the Old and New Testaments being 'God-breathed' and God-willed 'to be there for our salvation', let me take you on a short biblical journey of discovery and revision.

      When the adulterous woman was hauled before Jesus for condemnation to death by stoning (according to Levitical stricture), Jesus ignored the stricture. Which was odd, wasn't it? From your fundamentalist point of view? If that stricture truly had been 'God-breathed', then Jesus could not have ignored it. As Paul states in Philippians 2:8 : '...he (Jesus) humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.' To whom was he obedient? His Father, of course. And this obedience he prized above even his own life. Does this tell you anything yet? About the origin of Scripture? If those words in Leviticus had truly been 'God-breathed', then Jesus would not only have obeyed them unhesitatingly, but would have taken the lead and taught, by his own example, how the bloodlusting mob should deal with such people as that wretched woman. (Please, don't respeat the intellectually passé defence that Mosaic Law required both parties in adultery to be brought for trial. Jesus, in his reply, did not even allude to the absent male party.) As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said: 'Scripture is the word of God through the words of human beings.' And he is absolutely correct (er, despite his being an Anglican).

      By the way, I'm neither old (you'd be surprised), nor an apostate.

      One more thing, excessive use of the exclamation mark can make one appear, at best, petulant with high blood pressure, at worst, hysterical with even higher blood pressure. And (oh, dear!) you were liberal in your use of this punctuation.

      Delete
    6. Magna at 12.34 . It's very easy to google in scripture texts and receive scholarly background. It's not rocket science. I earned my masters in Liturgy and Theology by use of my own ability to intellegently and coherently put together my subjects. No difficulty now in presenting myself as very learned, simply by opening google alongside my knowledge. Also it helps to be familiar with the Jerome Biblical Dictionary, Fr. Denis NcBride's excellent books, works of Jerome Murphy O' Connor, Wilfred Harrington O.P.-- all excellent teachers of THE TRUTH not subjective, personal, misleading interpretations.

      Delete
    7. MourneManMichael22 August 2017 at 16:34

      Nice one Magna. I'd earlier thought of replying myself.
      Now as you will have picked up, I'm a non believer in the deity or deities, nor of the deity inspired bible as having any god given significance. I accept we'll disagree on that, and I fully accept from your posts that you have a much more profound knowledge of it than I.
      But what I thought of was asking the poster at 11:05 to explain the origins of what Christians call the Bible in relation to Emperor Constantine's influence on the early Christian church's deliberations on what should or should not be included. And of course there are questions relating to other early writings both those known at that time, and subsequently discovered.

      What is also interesting is how little of events recorded in the New ~Testament are corroborated by records contemporary to those times, especially given the Roman's love of record keeping.
      Perhaps you could comment, and I'd be interested, for I fear those that rantingly abuse you would have little constructive information to offer on the matter.
      MMM

      Delete
    8. 15:58, are you the poster at 11:05?

      I'm not being facetious, but what was the point of your comment at 15:58? Was it critical of my comment at 12:34? If so, on what biblical or other ground?

      Delete
    9. MMM, thanks for the compliment.

      Don't underestimate the intellectual weight of your own knowledge, not just on this matter, but on numerous others. Your posts here are usually an unequivocal affirmation of this.

      How much influence did Constantine exert on the formation of the Canon of Scripture? Through the Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D. , none, actually. Establishing a scriptural canon was not the purpose of the Council from Constantine's perspective. He sought (and got) a definitive statement from the Council on the nature of Jesus' being (created or uncreated), because the divisions within the Church, through the teaching of the Egyptian priest Arius, were threatening the stability of his empire. As ever, Constantine's motive was political self-interest.

      The Canon of Scripture was not fixed until sixty years after Constantine's death, in 397 at Carthage.

      As for those other writings (I presume you mean such works as the Gnostic Gospels, the most famous of which is the Gospel of Thomas), some scholars believe that the Church was right to exclude them from the Canon of Scripture, and, indeed, there were, on occasion, good reasons for excluding at least some Gnostic texts in this way. For example, some of the texts show the author's interest in Jesus to be motivated purely by his ability to work wonders rather than his self-revelation as the son of God. Others believe that the Church was right to exclude the Gnostic works from the Canon on the ground that the writers lied about authorship. The writer of Thomas, for example, names the Apostle Thomas as author of his work. On this ground, however, we should have to exclude certain books that are already part of the New Testament Canon: the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and John, for instance, attribute their work to these apostles, even though the consensus of scholarly opinion today accepts anonymity of authorship here.

      Were the Romans just not bothered enough about the reported wonder-works of an itinerant Jewish rabbi to keep a record of them? In a nutshell, no, they weren't in the least bothered. The Romans held Jews in contempt, and their monotheistic belief in even greater contempt. Remember Rome had a pantheon of gods, which Jewish monotheistic belief implicitly denied and scorned. However, Rome was pragmatic enough for the sake of civil order, to leave well enough alone. Beyond this it had no interest in Jewish belief, or in itinerant Jewish rabbis, provided neither threatened the stability of Roman rule.

      Delete
  22. Elements of the Orthodox Church find no grace in papal orders, but Catholics don't seem to lose sleep over this unless, of course, they visit Mount Athos.

    This reminds me of the sequel to Taxi, haven't we had this conversation before?

    I do wish that Bishop Meehan would visit her Mariavite sisters because to me they have had so much experience, alas, both negative and positive with respect to the episcopal office.

    Seraphim+

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bishop Pat thank you for putting the Bishops homily on the post. I was wondering if you could edit the footage to take out all the coughing, rustling and sniffing noises as I find it very distracting.

    ReplyDelete