Posted on 09/11/2018 4:54:10 PM PDT by marshmallow
‘Keep your nerve and draw closer to the Person of Jesus’: Bishop Philip Egan considers a response to the clerical sex-abuse scandal.
Bishop Philip Egan, the eighth bishop of Portsmouth, England, lent his voice to the chorus of Church leaders appalled by the burgeoning clerical sex-abuse scandal and cover-up Aug. 22, when he wrote a letter to Pope Francis requesting that he convene an extraordinary synod of bishops to address the scandal in the United States, Chile, Honduras and elsewhere. “Clerical sex abuse seems to be a worldwide phenomenon in the Church,” Bishop Egan’s letter said. “As a Catholic and a bishop, these revelations fill me with deep sorrow and shame.”
The bishop, 65, said that, in addition to expressions of sadness, he felt compelled to offer a more “constructive suggestion” and asked the Holy Father to consider calling an Extraordinary Synod on the Life and Ministry of Clergy.
Dallas Bishop Edward Burns penned and published a letter, dated Aug. 29, to join Bishop Egan in suggesting to Pope Francis that a synod on the life and ministry of clergy was needed. And Aug. 30, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia reportedly told the Cardinals’ Forum that he had written to the Pope requesting that he cancel a synod on young people and instead hold one on the life of bishops. Register correspondent K.V. Turley interviewed Bishop Egan via email Sept. 5.
You called for an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Life and Ministry of Clergy Aug. 22. What exactly would that consist of?
First, we need to get through the immediate situation and its scandal, but a synod, I believe, would be a huge help. It would need careful preparation.
I would envisage it comprising, first, a congress of laity and others who are experts in the abuse......
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Sounds a bit like a dodge. What is needed is a thorough investigation of Pope Francis and his closest allies in the hierarchy, preliminary to kicking him and the rest of them out. Not sure a synod is the tool for the job.
ping
Ping.
Roman Catholicism continues to advance the false teaching that they have to pray to Mary and that she is the "mother of the church".
It seems in Roman Catholicism that the Spirit is somehow insufficient in the life of the Roman Catholic.
You are ignorant.
The Church is VERY specific about the offering of respectful admiration/adoration of Mary as compared to the worship of the Triune God. They are NOT the same:
Dulia. This is the honor and recognition which we accord to the saints. Perhaps they died as martyrs rather than deny God; or they worked great miracles, since their friendship with God meant that He granted their prayers for healing or restoration; or they simply, as Therese of Lisieux, lived holiness in their own “little way.”
Hyperdulia. This is, to put it simply, lots and lots of dulia. This is the very special honor we accord to Mary, the Mother of God.
Latria. This is true worship, and is given only to God.
And since Mary is arguably the very first Christian, it is hard to argue that she is NOT "mother of the Church".
The three things are needed: FIrst, the mass excommunication of clergy involved either as perpetrators or in covering up the crimes. Second, a reiteration of the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is a grave sin and morally wrong in any circumstance. Third, the Pope should order all churches to conduct special prayers and spiritual cleansing of their premises to ward off Satan and the other evil spirits that are the source of this mess.
Yes....Rome has to redefine what worship is to avoid the injunctions against worshipping the created to justify their worship of Mary.
And since Mary is arguably the very first Christian,.....
Sheer speculation on your part.
it is hard to argue that she is NOT "mother of the Church".
Well, yes it is based on the what happened at the Cross when Jesus gave her to John....and only John. This is clear if you understand the Greek.
I think the RC church has a better handle on the definition of "worship" than a bunch of late-comers.
"Sheer speculation on your part."
So if not Mary, who was the first Christian? She was there from the very start.
"Well, yes it is based on the what happened at the Cross when Jesus gave her to John....and only John. This is clear if you understand the Greek.
Except that neither Jesus nor John were speaking Greek. I'm not aware that the Aramaic used was recorded anywhere.
So if not Mary, who was the first Christian? She was there from the very start.
Interesting question. We don't know for sure. Hence, sheer speculation on your part.
>>Well, yes it is based on the what happened at the Cross when Jesus gave her to John....and only John. This is clear if you understand the Greek.<<
Except that neither Jesus nor John were speaking Greek. I'm not aware that the Aramaic used was recorded anywhere.
You presume they were speaking Aramaic.
However, what we do have is recorded in the Greek as determined by the Holy Spirit. The Greek does not support Rome's claim on this issue.
"What you've seen" is irrelevant. I've given you the official definitions as used by the Church. Show me where they have changed over time.
"Interesting question. We don't know for sure. Hence, sheer speculation on your part."
Who else is there?? The Bible doesn't record anyone other than Mary as "following Christ" for 30+ years. The Wedding at Cana seems pretty definitive to me.
"You presume they were speaking Aramaic."
Since Aramaic was the native language of Jesus, Mary, and John, it is highly likely that in the stressful situation at Golgotha, that is what was used.
"What you've seen" is irrelevant. I've given you the official definitions as used by the Church. Show me where they have changed over time.
The concepts Rome advocates for this are not in the New Testament. They were not taught by the Apostles. There's your change right there.
>>"Interesting question. We don't know for sure. Hence, sheer speculation on your part."<<
Who else is there?? The Bible doesn't record anyone other than Mary as "following Christ" for 30+ years. The Wedding at Cana seems pretty definitive to me.
Again...speculation on your part. I do agree that Mary was one of the earliest believers. However there are other candidates as well. Joseph, Zacharias, Elizabeth...
>> "You presume they were speaking Aramaic."<<
Since Aramaic was the native language of Jesus, Mary, and John, it is highly likely that in the stressful situation at Golgotha, that is what was used.
You're still presuming in your statement by noting it "is highly likely".
However, the NT is recorded in Greek as moved by the Spirit. To be sure, there are some Aramaic phrases in the NT. However, the text is Greek.
Both doctrines date back at least to 400AD, and have been taught exactly the same until now.
"However there are other candidates as well. Joseph, Zacharias, Elizabeth..."
None of whom pre-date Mary.
Nothing’s going to get fixed until the issue of gay clergy is addressed.
That's three hundred years from the time of the Apostles. That's a substantial gap in time.
It comes down to this...the Roman Catholic worship of Mary is not found in nor sanctioned by what is witnessed to in the New Testament.
It is a later development of Roman Catholicism.....not New Testament Christianity.
>>"However there are other candidates as well. Joseph, Zacharias, Elizabeth..."<<
None of whom pre-date Mary.
And again you speculate based on your Roman Catholic bias.
Yeah, and the 1100 year gap between those writings and the earliest Protestant thought is a lot bigger.
"It comes down to this...the Roman Catholic worship of Mary is not found in nor sanctioned by what is witnessed to in the New Testament."
Roman Catholics do not "worship" Mary. I've already given you the 1600 year old doctrine proving that.
And the first "Protestant" (i.e. Martin Luther) accepted RC "mariology" as legitimate.
"And again you speculate based on your Roman Catholic bias"
So, from your Protestant Bible, show me ANY earlier Christian witness. There are none. Mary was Christian from her first "let it be done to me according to thy Word".
Actually, all that I believe is in the New Testament....no gap at all.
Roman Catholics do not "worship" Mary. I've already given you the 1600 year old doctrine proving that.
Muslims and Mormons make a lot of claims as well. However, proof is in the pudding as they say. What Rome has accorded to Mary and how it worships Mary just is not found nor supported by Scripture.
And the first "Protestant" (i.e. Martin Luther) accepted RC "mariology" as legitimate.
Roman Catholics continue to labor under the false impression that non-Roman Catholics somehow follow Luther.
>>"And again you speculate based on your Roman Catholic bias"<<
So, from your Protestant Bible, show me ANY earlier Christian witness. There are none. Mary was Christian from her first "let it be done to me according to thy Word.
An argument that doesn't mean anything. Let's suppose for your sakes your statement is correct.
What does it mean? Nothing other than Mary would be the first believer. That does not accord her any status other than she believed first. It does not make her the "mother of the church" much as you want it to be.
Which is itself a non-biblical perspective. "Sola scriptura" is specifically rejected in the New Testament, and rejected by the "Portestant's substitute for Peter" (i.e. St. Paul).
"An argument that doesn't mean anything. Let's suppose for your sakes your statement is correct. What does it mean? Nothing other than Mary would be the first believer. That does not accord her any status other than she believed first. It does not make her the "mother of the church" much as you want it to be.
You Protestants make a big deal about "accepting Jesus" and "having a personal relationship" with same. Mary did both first, and was therefore, even by Protestant definition, the first Christian. I would think that simple logic would tell you that she is therefore deserving of a high level of respect from subsequent Christians.
Mary does not save anyone nor can she answer anyone’s prayer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.