The NMH at St. Vincents

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

You stated there was an "irish CATHOLIC Church" long before the roman Catholic Church. Now you're claiming there was no Catholicism in Ireland before the Norman invasion.
.

You seem easily confused my dear. I did not say that at all, you can, of course, quote me.

To clarify for those hard of reading, there existed an Irish church long before the Roman church on this Island. Both of these churches would have called itself Catholic due to the doctrine, theology and teachings of the time.

One can certainly call this an Irish Catholic church, even if the modern-day term Catholic is near synonymous with the Vatican hence the confusion by some.

Regardless, the original point stands, regardless of nitpicking.

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

My mind is blown.

In fairness, it does not take a lot with ya. Random conspiracy theory video tends to do the trick.

It's all the Illuminati's fault mind you.

nullzero

markodaly wrote: »

You seem easily confused my dear. I did not say that at all, you can, of course, quote me.

To clarify for those hard of reading, there existed an Irish church long before the Roman church on this Island. Both of these churches would have called itself Catholic due to the doctrine, theology and teachings of the time.

One can certainly call this an Irish Catholic church, even if the modern-day term Catholic is near synonymous with the Vatican hence the confusion by some.

Regardless, the original point stands, regardless of nitpicking.

How is it nitpicking to quote exactly what you said verbatim?
You stated there was an Irish Catholic Church long before the roman Catholic Church arrived in Ireland and then you said there was no Catholic faith in Ireland until the Normans arrived.
The Catholic faith originated in Rome, unless you can prove that it was based somewhere else (other than France for a short time), it was founded in Rome and spread from Rome.

The cheek of you saying things like "those hard of reading". You made these statements and now you're rowing back on them because you know you're wrong and at the same time you're having a go because your statements are being quoted. I'm sorry my dear but you could have at least admitted you made an incorrect statement but instead you go on the offensive when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Well I'll continue to highlight how you've contradicted yourself and its just too bad for you.

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

\s no Catholic faith in Ireland until the Normans arrived.

Sigh...

Where did I say that.

nullzero

markodaly wrote: »

Sigh...

Where did I say that.

You said; "Roman Catholicism essentially came over with the Normans in the late 1200's, while Christianity came to Ireland 600-700 years before that."

The point is that the Catholic religion is the roman Catholic religion it has never been anything else, gone by any other name.

A can of coke might taste slightly different in another country but it is still branded as coca cola.

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

You said; "Roman Catholicism essentially came over with the Normans in the late 1200's, while Christianity came to Ireland 600-700 years before that."

Am I wrong with this statement, please tell me where and correct me exactly

The point is that the Catholic religion is the roman Catholic religion it has never been anything else, gone by any other name.

You are funny, you think by your nitpicking you can win on a technicality but your still so far wrong.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-meaning-definition.html

Catholic was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. The term has been incorporated into the name of the largest Christian communion, the Roman Catholic Church, which consists of 23 churches sui iuris, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The largest of these, the Latin Rite consists of nearly 95 percent of the population of the Catholic Church. The remaining 5 percent consist of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. Some Protestant churches use the term "catholic Church" to refer broadly to all believers in Jesus Christ across the world and the ages, regardless of denominational affiliation. Generally, to avoid confusion between this concept and the Roman Catholic Church, theologians will refer to the “universal church” as the “church catholic,” utilizing the lower case, instead of “Catholic Church.”

nullzero

markodaly wrote: »

Am I wrong with this statement, please tell me where and correct me exactly




You are funny, you think by your nitpicking you can win on a technicality but your still so far wrong.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-meaning-definition.html

You're talking about Eastern churches, not the faith practiced in Western Europe at any time.

Show me evidence for this "irish catholic Church" of yours.

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

You're talking about Eastern churches, not the faith practiced in Western Europe at any time.

LOL, You missed the bit highlighted where some Anglican church also called themselves Catholic. I know, it must be hard to hold two thoughts at once

nullzero

markodaly wrote: »

LOL, You missed the bit highlighted where some Anglican church also called themselves Catholic. I know, it must be hard to hold two thoughts at once

The Anglican Church didn't exist until the reformation.

For somebody who condescends with such speed you really need to think out your own arguments a bit better.
You're moving the goalposts here, I'm quoting what YOU said.

And still no evidence for this "Irish Catholic Church" of yours, but accuse me of moving the goal posts that should deflect from your own nonsense, just say the other person is being unreasonable for quoting things YOU said, how dare somebody highlight your flawed logic, that is a privilege reserved only for you. You don't seem capable of holding one thought at once.

Bannasidhe

nullzero wrote: »

You're talking about Eastern churches, not the faith practiced in Western Europe at any time.

Show me evidence for this "irish catholic Church" of yours.

Mark is kind of correct but he is cherry picking.

The "Gaelic" Church considered itself part of the broad European Church ruled from Rome but had some doctrinal differences - the most well known being the date of Easter, which was sorted out at the Synod of Whitby in 664 when the vote went Rome's way and the Gaelic church conceded. The Gaelic Church structurally was more akin to the Egyptian Coptic church as it has a more monastic remove yourself from the world way of doing things and didn't engage in proselytising. Essentially, although Ireland was Christian it was also a deeply secular society where religion did not form the basis of the legal system - or even inform it.

The "Catholic" church Mark is referring to it is the form brought by the Normans - with the blessing of Rome - which sought to supplant the native church and bring it into line - one of the main issues being the failure of the Gaelic church to pay "Peter's Pence" to Rome and tendency to not try and control civil society.

So, the Irish church considered itself ruled by Rome but didn't do things the way Rome wanted them done (in fact the Irish church was vocal in it's criticism of Rome's way, St Malachy literally walked to Rome so he could tell them how they were doing it wrong) - or help fill Rome's coffers - so Rome advocated an invasion of Ireland in the 12th century charging the King of England to "sort out" the Irish Church i.e. Bring it into line.

Gerald of Wales had much to say on this topic, in fact he is our main source for the "differences". Gerald himself being a high ranking Cambro-Norman clergyman and member of the invading FitzGerald family.
Glossed over by Gerald, and Mark, is the number of religious centers across Europe that were founded by Irish monks and that one of the paramount theologians and Christian philosophers of the 9th century based at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor was the Irish born and educated Johannes Scotus Erigena (His name literally means Irish John born in Ireland) - he's the guy who was on the fiver.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the RCC controlling either health care (or education) in Ireland which was a political decision taken in 1922 when the Free State came into existence.

The State paid the bills but abdicated control to the Roman Catholic Church.

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

The Anglican Church didn't exist until the reformation.

Yes, but some denominations call themselves Catholic today, just like some Eastern churches today, just like the Irish church before the Normans.... are you getting it now or is it all too hard for you.

To repeat... again...
The term Catholic today is synonymous with the Roman church but it was not always thus, hence one can call the Irish church since the Christianity came to these shores in the 5th century, Catholic, but Rome did not hold sway over this church until the 11th century.

If you do not get this simple rationale and evolution of both language and institutions then you're better off in the CT forum

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, but some denominations call themselves Catholic today, just like some Eastern churches today, just like the Irish church before the Normans.... are you getting it now or is it all too hard for you.

To repeat... again...
The term Catholic today is synonymous with the Roman church but it was not always thus, hence one can call the Irish church since the Christianity came to these shores in the 5th century, Catholic, but Rome did not hold sway over this church until the 11th century.

If you do not get this simple rationale and evolution of both language and institutions then you're better off in the CT forum

If you are the expert you are claiming to be you know that the Irish church considered itself subject to Rome long before the Normans came.

So you are either spinning or not as knowledgeable as you make out.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mark is kind of correct but he is cherry picking.

To be clear this all started by the notion that the history of the church in this island is about 100 years old (as if the church came to be in 1923 alone), when in fact, of course, its been here in one form or another for the past 1500 years.

Posters make wide sweeping allegations about this or that which of course is misleading, that is of course if the point is to inform rather than proselytize.

I would be more than happy to concede the point that the Irish church should cut all ties with Rome and the Vatican.

uptherebels

markodaly wrote: »

So you don't know. Which is fine by the way. But to that extent, you then concede the point that the state were always paying teachers and nurses, when in fact they weren't for much of the history of this Island.




Yes, I do. Again, I am not happy with that situation but again a simple solution. Buy the properties that these schools own.

wow! the history of the island! how far back do you go? is the 1830's not enough?
well is suppose when, you said history of this island you could go back millions of years:rolleyes:

markodaly

uptherebels wrote: »

wow! the history of the island! how far back do you go? is the 1830's not enough?
well is suppose when, you said history of this island you could go back millions of years:rolleyes:

So the point is to proselytize, not inform. At least we know now. Again, this is AH, not the Athenian Agora.

nullzero

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, but some denominations call themselves Catholic today, just like some Eastern churches today, just like the Irish church before the Normans.... are you getting it now or is it all too hard for you.

To repeat... again...
The term Catholic today is synonymous with the Roman church but it was not always thus, hence one can call the Irish church since the Christianity came to these shores in the 5th century, Catholic, but Rome did not hold sway over this church until the 11th century.

If you do not get this simple rationale and evolution of both language and institutions then you're better off in the CT forum

You said the Irish Catholic Church was here long before the roman Catholic Church. That doesn't make any logical sense. The term Catholic can be used any way you want Now, back then it meant the roman Catholic Church.

What this has to do with conspiracy theories I don't know.

aloyisious

markodaly wrote: »

You seem easily confused my dear. I did not say that at all, you can, of course, quote me.

To clarify for those hard of reading, there existed an Irish church long before the Roman church on this Island. Both of these churches would have called itself Catholic due to the doctrine, theology and teachings of the time.

One can certainly call this an Irish Catholic church, even if the modern-day term Catholic is near synonymous with the Vatican hence the confusion by some.

Regardless, the original point stands, regardless of nitpicking.

Catholic as in Universal, rather than the RC Vatican version of Christianity [which is an altogether different topic]?

Bringing our national history up to the present age and to this new national maternity hospital debate, I can understand people not being able to see the difference between the term Catholic and the Vatican as that sameness is promoted by the Vatican, and having homegrown agents here willing presently to promote the Vatican line when it comes to deciding what is in civil law here [which both the Vatican and their agents want to be subservient to RC Canon law/s issued from the Vatican].

The notion that an Irish male adult [the editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper] can promote the notion that the Vatican can over-rule Irish Civil law with RC canon [religious] law is plain proof that some people here think the Irish people must continue to obey the Vatican even in matters of a national health plan and hospital funded totally by Irish taxes.

nullzero

markodaly wrote: »

So the point is to proselytize, not inform. At least we know now. Again, this is AH, not the Athenian Agora.

You're the one sidestepping your own statements and now you're projecting the notion of proselytising onto others when all that's happening in an analysis of what YOU said.

Gael23

Once they have no voice on the board of management I see no issues with them returning legal ownership

volchitsa

Gael23 wrote: »

Once they have no voice on the board of management I see no issues with them returning legal ownership

One reason is because Catholic ideology does not allow them to provide the full range of legal medical services to women, and it appears that they cannot divest themselves of that obligation to ensure that Catholic teaching is respected in properties that they legally own, even if they want to.

IOW they will want (require) some input whether that is via a seat on the board of management or some other mechanism.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

To be clear this all started by the notion that the history of the church in this island is about 100 years old (as if the church came to be in 1923 alone), when in fact, of course, its been here in one form or another for the past 1500 years.

Posters make wide sweeping allegations about this or that which of course is misleading, that is of course if the point is to inform rather than proselytize.

I would be more than happy to concede the point that the Irish church should cut all ties with Rome and the Vatican.

But for the purposes of this discussion the interconnected, symbiotic, relationship between the new Irish State and the RCC is at the heart of the discussion.

From the beginning the Irish State abdicated responsibility for health care (and education) to the RCC, created a two-tier system of private and public (heavily subsidising one and funding the other), while allowing the ethos of one religion to decide on the agenda and provision of services.

This has no place in a republic.

No religion should be allowed to dominate - or impose it's ideological agenda- on any publicly funded core service.

aloyisious

Gael23 wrote: »

Once they have no voice on the board of management I see no issues with them returning legal ownership

The snag is that with ownership of the land comes the title of landlord. According to Saturday's Irish Times, one part of the deal between the Dept, Holles St and St Vincents on the setting up of the NMH is that the nuns will be paid a nominal rent of ten Euro a year for the 99 year lease of the site the new NMH is built on.

The ownership of the land can be swept under the carpet by those involved in trying to get the new NMH built but that fact will still be there, even if there is paperwork done in the name of the new SVH group to get construction going. The nuns got a reminder from an Irish bishop about their loyalty to the teachings of the church with reference to the planned NMH on their property and the plan for abortion procedures to be carried out there.

Two other things which have been announced are: A. the RC archbishop of Dublin will be removing himself from the title of chair of Holles St Hospital board of governance and: B. the master of Holles St NMH will be leaving that post by the new year.

gctest50

Gael23 wrote: »

Once they have no voice on the board of management I see no issues with them returning legal ownership

Why are they there then ? for decoration ?

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

You said the Irish Catholic Church was here long before the roman Catholic Church. That doesn't make any logical sense. The term Catholic can be used any way you want Now, back then it meant the roman Catholic Church.

I have already gone into quite a lot of detail about this, and so has another poster. If you cannot grasp the concept by now, I suggest you just bow out of the debate.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But for the purposes of this discussion the interconnected, symbiotic, relationship between the new Irish State and the RCC is at the heart of the discussion.

From the beginning the Irish State abdicated responsibility for health care (and education) to the RCC, created a two-tier system of private and public (heavily subsidising one and funding the other), while allowing the ethos of one religion to decide on the agenda and provision of services.

This has no place in a republic.

No religion should be allowed to dominate - or impose it's ideological agenda- on any publicly funded core service.

I do not have much disagreement with this to be honest.

My main bone of contention is the fact that the debate today on this thread is more about scaremongering as if nuns will be patrolling the wards of the new NMH and giving advice on medical treatments. This, of course, is nonsense.

If one wants to have a debate about private or public ownership of this hospital, that's fine. One solution is, of course, is for the state to buy the land from the SOC. A solution no one wants to put forward however because they know it would cost the taxpayer an extra few hundred million.

People believed Rhona o'Mahony during the 8th campaign, but now want to dismiss her point of view. I find that odd.

Getting down to simple bare bones of the situation, its turned political because the sheeple always like a good church bashing now and again, if there are votes in there for them.

anotherfinemess

Why do nuns need a maternity hospital? Are they allowed to have babies now?

NuMarvel

anotherfinemess wrote: »

Why do nuns need a maternity hospital? Are they allowed to have babies now?

It was government policy, not "the nuns" that decided the NMH should relocate to St Vincent's. The hospital weren't even initially in favour of the relocation and had to be convinced.

And before anyone says it, there wasn't any realistic alternative. The plan is that each of the three hospital groups in Dublin will have a maternity hospital co-located with a major adult hospital. The only other major adult hospital in their group that the NMH could have relocated to was the Mater, which would have presented greater challenges in getting planning permission. And is also owned by a religious order, so people would have the same objections they have now, assuming planning was granted.

nullzero

markodaly wrote: »

I have already gone into quite a lot of detail about this, and so has another poster. If you cannot grasp the concept by now, I suggest you just bow out of the debate.

Or I could adopt your tactic of waiting 24 hours or so until everyone has moved on from the thread(I recall you employing the exact same tactic on another thread about a week ago) to come back and steal the moral high ground whilst taking a condescending tone. You've gone into a lot of detail on concepts that aren't related to what you said.
You cherry pick your quotes and you still haven't addressed the question I asked; where is the evidence for this Irish Catholic Church of yours? The one that supposedly existed long before the roman Catholic Church on this island.

"I suggest you bow out of the debate", what a nice suggestion a full day after you did exactly that.

markodaly

nullzero wrote: »

Or I could adopt your tactic of waiting 24 hours or so

I am sorry, but I do have a life.

Ush1

markodaly wrote: »

one can call the Irish church since the Christianity came to these shores in the 5th century, Catholic

Sure you can call an apple an orange but it's just symantics isn't it?:)