|
Post by Account Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 9:11:51 GMT
Fr. Flannery is also lying every time he professes the Creed, it seems. He's not alone. Regularly at the mass I attend one particular priest either omits the Creed or starts the first line and says nothing while the congregation completes it. On one occasion we were told to "say it at home." Given his anti-church establishment ramblings from the pulpit, I'm convinced the reason he is so lax about the Creed is because he doesn't believe half of it. We are accustomed to anti-church sentiment from the secular society, but it presents quite an unwarranted challenge to a faithful congregation when the priests themselves (charged with the spiritual welfare of their flock) refuse to uphold Christ's Church and treat it instead as an embarrassing inconvenience (at best) or an obstacle (at worst) to their own personal flavour of doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by prayerful on Apr 6, 2017 19:49:19 GMT
Yes, Tony Flannery is just more indiscreet and egotistical (wanting to be at the centre of things, how different from the genuine Catholic spirit) but I don't think his positions are any way rare among Conciliar priests.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 6, 2017 22:02:31 GMT
I remember noting that at least some of the regular ACP combox contributors appear to think that priests should be allowed to make up the liturgy as they go along, rather than sticking to the words.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 7, 2017 8:38:33 GMT
I had a look at one of Fr. Flannery's blog posts. What struck me is the mealy-mouthedness. He doesn't even have the courage to be clear about his beliefs, whatever they might be. He takes refuge in vagueness.
I thought of analysing it on my own blog, then I thought better for two reasons. First, why give him more attention? Second, the objections to his views are so obvious, even making them seems redundant-- if they are not obvious to his own supporters, one despairs of their intellect.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 8, 2017 18:16:00 GMT
This week's IRISH CATHOLIC has a couple of columns pointing out the bleedin' obvious - that Fr Flannery's descriptions of Catholic doctrine are a travesty. I am not sure how far Fr Flannery is particularly vague about his beliefs - he doesn't have a sense of how to present them because he sees them as self-evident and regards anyone who disagrees with them as mentally or morally deficient. In this, oddly enough, he reminds me of Des Fennell. This is quite a good critique. One point it could devElop more is that Fr Flannery and his pals, instead of seeing the Church as the means by which Christ is made ever-present to us, seem to think that it is and always has beeN a conspiracy to conceal His teaching - wHich would be more convincing if Fr Flannery paid any attention to those parts of the Gospels which contradict his own brainstorms. irishcatholic.ie/article/fr-flannerys-empty-credo
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 8, 2017 18:28:57 GMT
I stand by my claim that he is vague! How about this from his latest blog post:
"I don’t think all the efforts (and battles) down through the centuries about how exactly Jesus is present in the Eucharist have been very helpful. The doctrine tells us that when the priest speaks the words of consecration (This is my body; this is my blood) that Jesus becomes present in the bread and wine. This is where the word ‘transubstantiation’ comes in, and it is a good example of old language failing to communicate much of anything to many people today.
I believe that Jesus is with us when we celebrate the Eucharist together, and there have been times when I have experienced his presence strongly – the latest being at the Mass I celebrated in my local village hall for my seventieth birthday. I believe that his presence is much more wonderful and powerful than the traditional teaching indicates. I believe he is not just present in the signs (bread and wine), but also in the gathered community, and in fact in each of us individually. So not only do we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, but we bring him with us to the gathering. We give and we take, and Jesus is in the giving and the taking.
As a general rule, I think that both life and faith are deep mysteries, and we should try to enter into them with an open mind and heart, rather than try to explain and control them. The big mistake the Church has made down through the centuries is that it has tried to tie down and explain for all time realities that are deeply mysterious and profound. Too much doctrine kills mystery."
Could you get any vaguer?
|
|
|
Post by prayerful on Apr 16, 2017 1:00:54 GMT
That's how a formal heretic rolls, sometimes the heresy, sometimes ambiguity. Judging by a picture of Tony and his groupies, the passage of a few years will make short work of them. 'Coffin dodgers' would be a harsh but apt term.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 4, 2017 21:52:39 GMT
I think his position is basically pantheist - note his remark some time ago that he objects to "my soul shall be healed" because he sees it as implying the soul is separate from and superior to the body. He is fairly clear about what he DOESN'T believe - the vagueness is about why.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 14, 2017 20:55:42 GMT
On the ACP site, Fr Gabriel Daly responds to the dispute over the National Maternity Hospital by seeming to deny the possibility or desirability of a CAtholic medical ethos. He also gets in some gratuitous snarks and sneers at Bishop Doran of Elphin. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2017/05/catholic-ethos-and-other-mysteries/Nice combox comment from one contributor who in other issues is clearly on the theological "left". EXTRACT Padraig McCarthy May 10th, 2017 at 12:20 pm Good balanced statement from ACP about National Maternity Hospital (under its own title on the home page). But one reservation: “The Association of Catholic Priests fully accepts the principle that a National Maternity Hospital must be in full compliance with the laws of the land.” As good citizens, we must be aware that “the laws of the land” may not always embody justice, in our land and elsewhere. Laws of the land may enforce oppression. In Ireland from 1558 to 1759, there were 61 Statutes for the Suppression of Popery. Think of laws of various States controlling immigration, punishment for crime including death penalty, protection of the environment, etc. As citizens we have a responsibility for the laws of the land. There are many examples both today and in the past. If laws are effectively unjust, as good citizens we have a responsibility to decide how to respond, and not just with mute compliance. As disciples of Jesus, we have a responsibility and privilege of care for each and every human being. Remember Dan Berrigan, who died just over a year ago. END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 29, 2017 19:49:53 GMT
Patsy McGarry in today's IRISH TIMES cites Fr Gabriel Daly's rant (see above) as the latest news. Since Fr Daly's piece was posted on 7 May, this suggests even Patsy McGarry can only bear to drop in on the site every three weeks or so. He also cites the 10 May ACP declaration on the issue, which I missed www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2017/05/the-national-maternity-hospital/ Their view that a hospital which receives state funds should be controlled by the state really sells the pass - it amounts to saying that the idea of the state funding independent institutions to provide services is ultra vires. The view that no religious group should dictate what happens in such a hospital, and the hospital must be subject to the law of the land, also comes pretty close to Erastianism. Bishop von Galen was a criminal by these criteria.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 29, 2017 19:57:34 GMT
Fr. Flannery is also lying every time he professes the Creed, it seems. He's not alone. Regularly at the mass I attend one particular priest either omits the Creed or starts the first line and says nothing while the congregation completes it. On one occasion we were told to "say it at home." Given his anti-church establishment ramblings from the pulpit, I'm convinced the reason he is so lax about the Creed is because he doesn't believe half of it. We are accustomed to anti-church sentiment from the secular society, but it presents quite an unwarranted challenge to a faithful congregation when the priests themselves (charged with the spiritual welfare of their flock) refuse to uphold Christ's Church and treat it instead as an embarrassing inconvenience (at best) or an obstacle (at worst) to their own personal flavour of doctrine. Another thought occurred to me yesterday - every time Fr Flannery says Mass he must repeat the words "Jesus taught us to call God our Father, and so we have the courage to say, Our FAther who art in Heaven,etc..." How does he reconcile this with his claim that he represents the Scriptural message of Jesus, and that it is harmful to speak of God as male? Of course when we use male terminology of God we are speaking by analogy, not literally (just as Jesus spoke by analogy when He compared Himself to a hen gathering its chickens under its wings). Fr Flannery seems to think that if we cannot fully understand God we cannot understand anything about Him.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 29, 2017 20:25:43 GMT
Patsy McGarry in today's IRISH TIMES cites Fr Gabriel Daly's rant (see above) as the latest news. Since Fr Daly's piece was posted on 7 May, this suggests even Patsy McGarry can only bear to drop in on the site every three weeks or so. He also cites the 10 May ACP declaration on the issue, which I missed www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2017/05/the-national-maternity-hospital/ Their view that a hospital which receives state funds should be controlled by the state really sells the pass - it amounts to saying that the idea of the state funding independent institutions to provide services is ultra vires. The view that no religious group should dictate what happens in such a hospital, and the hospital must be subject to the law of the land, also comes pretty close to Erastianism. Bishop von Galen was a criminal by these criteria. Yes, I saw that too. The post seems to be almost apologetic for their stance, which to be fair does try to defend the sisters from the attacks we have witnessed in recent days. They also appear to miss the point that many people are worried about - that this furore would be used to further undermine the Church's witness and further a radical pro-abortion agenda. In fact, I am increasingly suspicious, following Simon Harris' reaction, that this was the intended outcome, that St. Vincent's was chosen on purpose to push the Church out of the healthcare system by provoking a liberal backlash. I know that conspiracy theories are not good, but this sounds worryingly plausible.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 29, 2017 21:32:32 GMT
Young Ireland, that idea has occurred to me too. The government MUST have realised the reaction that would have occurred-- the decision seems bizarre without some other motive.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on May 30, 2017 12:32:10 GMT
Another thought occurred to me yesterday - every time Fr Flannery says Mass he must repeat the words "Jesus taught us to call God our Father, and so we have the courage to say, Our FAther who art in Heaven,etc..." How does he reconcile this with his claim that he represents the Scriptural message of Jesus, and that it is harmful to speak of God as male? Of course when we use male terminology of God we are speaking by analogy, not literally (just as Jesus spoke by analogy when He compared Himself to a hen gathering its chickens under its wings). Fr Flannery seems to think that if we cannot fully understand God we cannot understand anything about Him. He really should be honest to himself and become a minister in some protestant congregation or other, where individual (non-traditional) doctrines are embraced; Or perhaps Fr. Flannery should practice more silence, as indicated by some pertinent words from Cardinal Sarah's latest work: "It is not inopportune to remind these priests and prelates, who give the impression of saying the opposite of the Church's traditional teaching in matters of doctrine and morality, of Christ's severe words: 'Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven' [..] The closer we are to the Holy Spirit, the more silent we are; and the farther we are from the Spirit, the more garrulous we are." Given Pope Benedict's recent approval of Cardinal Sarah's work, it is encouraging to think that the future of Christ's Church may rest with such as he, rather than the Fr. Flannerys of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 30, 2017 21:45:36 GMT
I would hope so, Eirwatcher. Indeed we could all take Cardinal Sarah's words to heart.
|
|