73 Comments

• JuneAnnette | Jun 21, 2011, 01:42 PM EDT

  Carroll09 . . To “settle the matter of precisely which books belong in the Old Testament canon”, I submit the following . . Continued***Ex. 2) Matthew 23:35: “. . . from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.”***and in Luke 11:51: “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias”*** With these words Jesus confirms his witness to the extent of the Old Testament canon. Abel was the first martyr recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:8) and Zechariah the last martyr to be named in the Hebrew Old Testament order. Zechariah was stoned while prophesying to the people “in the court of the house of the LORD.” (2 Chronicles 24:21). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and 2 Chronicles the last. Jesus is saying from “Genesis to II Chronicles,” or according to our order, Genesis to Malachi, thereby confirming the divine authority and inspiration of the entire Hebrew canon. He confirms the 3-part division of the Old Testament.***Ex, 3) John 10:31-36; Luke 24:44; Jesus disagreed with the oral tradition of the Pharisees (Mark 7, Matthew 15), not with their concept of the Hebrew canon. There is no evidence whatever of any dispute between Him and the Jews as to the canonical authority of any Old Testament book.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 21, 2011, 01:40 PM EDT

  Carroll09 . . To “settle the matter of precisely which books belong in the Old Testament canon”, I submit the following: Since Christianity is based on the identity of Jesus (The Messiah), the Old Testament Jesus used is the Old Testament his church should use. The internal evidence of the New Testament reveals the Old Testament used by Jesus is identical to the books used in the Jewish Bible today, the Tanakh.**For Ex., 1) Jesus makes reference in Luke 24:44, to a three part division of scripture; this division is the current structure of the Jewish Bible. Psalms is the first and longest book of the third section of the Jewish Bible. "And he said unto them,These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms, concerning Me."***The reference Christ has made corresponds to the divisions of the Jewish Bible . . the Tanakh, namely. . . 'The Torah'; Nebhim (Prophets) & The Psalms.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 20, 2011, 12:21 PM EDT

  Carroll09 . . the word used 'INSPIRED’ from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted. By their own testimony, the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself.***MORE INTERNAL PROOFS FROM THE BIBLE that the whole Bible is the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD*** New Testament Writers Claimed Their Message Was from God***1 Corinthians 14:37 - “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of Lord.”***Ephesians 3:3-5 - The things Paul wrote were made known to him by revelation. Formerly these things were not known but have now been “revealed by the Spirit to his holy apostles & prophets.”***1 Thessalonians 4:15 - We say by the word of the Lord.***1 Timothy 4:1 - “The Spirit speaketh expressly. .”***2 Thessalonians 3:12; Acts 16:32; Romans 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5 ***Inspired Men Claimed that What Other Writers Wrote Was from God***Acts 1:16 - The Spirit spoke by the mouth of David.***Acts 28:25 - The Holy Spirit spoke by Isaiah ... prophet.***Hebrews 1:1,2 - God spoke in times past to the fathers by prophets. But now He has spoken to us by His Son.***BTW, even your church regards the New Testament books as INSPIRED!***THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

• JuneAnnette | Jun 20, 2011, 11:29 AM EDT

  Carroll09 . . with respect to your remark: “Christ did attest to the inspiration of the Old Testament. So the Old Testament is inspired, since we trust His word.” MORE INTERNAL PROOFS FROM THE BIBLE that the whole Bible is the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD***The fullest statement on the divine inspiration of Scripture is found in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:15-17): “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteouness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”***The Apostle Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13).

• JuneAnnette | Jun 20, 2011, 11:15 AM EDT

  By 170 A.D. Most of the Bible had already been approved and read by the church and the term New Testament was in use. This was long before any council. The Roman church says they proclaimed which books were actually INSPIRED and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament. Actually the Catholic Church in 397 at the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. The canon of the New Testament was set from the first century. It is Catholic myth that Catholics gave the world the Bible! THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

• JuneAnnette | Jun 20, 2011, 10:47 AM EDT

  My comment regarding the "arrogant assertions of the Church Fathers proves nothing" was in response to your taking exception to my assertion that Scripture has many internal proofs that affirm its inspiration. Furthermore, my reference to Tertullian and Irenaeus was simply to confirm that these men both recognized God's Word as the final authority and the testing stone by which all doctrines were to be tried The canon was not yet completed in their day. Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD) Irenaeus (c. 125 – 202 AD)****The answer to the question of how the apostles' writings come together to form the New Testament canon--the collection of books which are received as genuine and inspired Holy Scripture . . is simple. The Christians and the church simply acknowledged the apostles' authority and accepted their writings, and writings of those intimately associated with them (as Mark and Luke), as part of the Holy Scripture. The church did not put together a canon that made books authoritative because they were included in it. The church only acknowledged what was given by the apostles, and included books in the canon because of this apostolical authority. They never regarded these books as anything else than canonical.****THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

• Carroll09 | Jun 20, 2011, 08:47 AM EDT

  JuneAnnette - you say that the arrogant assertions of the Church Fathers prove nothing, yet only a few days ago you were quoting the very same Fathers in an attempt to prove the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura. So what exactly do you believe their arrogant assertions actually prove? Nothing or the actual position, beliefs and practices of the Early Church? Next, Christ did attest to the inspiration of the Old Testament. So the Old Testament is inspired, since we trust His word. It does not solve the question of the inspiration of the N.T., nor does it settle the matter of precisely which books belong in the Old Testament canon. With regard to Christ, the pharisees and the Church - Christ did not condemn all traditions, only those which nullified the commandments of God. In the case of Matthew 15, for example, He condemned the pharisees for dodging the commandment to honour one's father and mother. It is also clear that you are equating "traditions of men" with "Sacred Tradition" - "Sacred Tradition" is never contrary to the commandments of God and the Catholic Church can rest assured of this since Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide it to teach the truth always; "traditions of men" should not be automatically dismissed either - they may be contrary to the commandments, but not necessarily. In very fact, Protestant denominations themselves, though they may claim to reject them, also follow both Sacred Tradition and "traditions of men".

• Collette2 | Jun 19, 2011, 05:52 AM EDT

  JuneAnnette,June 14th 2011. I just want to thank you for expanding on former priest Richard Bennett's thought's re Cornelius. I have never compared the scriptural Peter of that encounter with the St Peter of the Church. It certainly struck a cord with me, not that I'm contemplating an "abdication". I will surely find an occasion to refer to it, with credits to both yourself and the composer. Thank you.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 18, 2011, 07:33 PM EDT

  Final thoughts***The parallels between the Scribes and the Pharisees and the claims made by the Roman Catholic “church” are indeed striking. These spiritual rulers thought themselves greater than and superior to the Son of God . . the Messiah . . the Word Incarnate . . who was in their very midst, whom they would neither receive nor hear. (John 1:11; John 8:43-47) The Roman Catholic “church” exhibits the same arrogant and presumptuous spirit as that of the Scribes and Pharisees . . the Jewish leaders in Christ's day, which earned them the unreserved censure of the Lord. Over the course of His earthly ministry, on several occasions, Christ sharply rebuked them, addressing them as hypocrites, for ascribing the same authority to their traditions with Scripture, and in so doing, making the “Word of God of none effect.” See Mark 7:6-9, 13; Matt. 15:3, 6***Christ quoted from, read from, and commended the O.T. Scriptures in his earthly ministry on many occasions: **** “It is written”Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Matt. 11:10; Matt. 21:13; Matt. 26:24; Matt. 26:31; Mark 1:2; Mark 7:6; Mark 9:12-13; Mark 11:17; Mark 14:21; Mark 14:27; Luke 4:4; Luke 4:8; Luke 4:16-20; Luke 7:27; Luke 10:26; Luke 18:31; Luke 19:46; Luke 20:17; Luke 22:37; Luke 24:44, 46; John 6:45; John 8:17; John 10:34; John 15:2***”Search the Scriptures”: Matt. 21:42; Matt. 22:29; Matt. 26:54;-56; Mark 12:24; Mark 14:49; Luke 24:27; Luke 24:32; Luke 24-45; John 5:39

• JuneAnnette | Jun 18, 2011, 07:12 PM EDT

  More internal proofs from Scripture itself***Jesus Christ Himself attested to the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures. Christ made many references to the Old Testament scriptures during his ministry. His statements attesting to the divine source of these writings can be grouped in three categories. First, Christ referred to the regulations of the Old Testament as the "commands of God;" and he referred to the writing of the Old Testament as if it were spoken directly by God. For example, in discussing the Old Testament command to honor one's father and mother, Christ said, ".... Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded saying, Honour thy father and mother:”. (Matthew 15:3,4). Second, he referred to the authors of the books of the Old Testament as "prophets," that is, spokesmen for God; and their writings as prophecies. Examples are Matthew 12:39 where Christ says, ". . . An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall be no sign given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” And in Matthew 11:13, he says, "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” And third, Christ confirmed that the Old Testament prophecies were divinely inspired by his confidence that all prophecy contained in the Scriptures would be "fulfilled" in their entirety. So he says in Matthew 5:17,18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, til all be fulfilled.” Christ's refers to the Old Testament scriptures which prophesied his own coming: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39,40)

• JuneAnnette | Jun 18, 2011, 06:22 PM EDT

  Carroll09 wrote: "As to the saying that one must be subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff for salvation, that is nothing different to what the Church Fathers were saying on the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage and Origen, who wrote: "If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation...Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death".***So what you are saying, Carroll1109 is that if the Church Fathers of the Catholic church said it, it must be TRUE! To which I reply unreservedly . . their arrogant assertions prove nothing.

• Carroll09 | Jun 18, 2011, 03:59 PM EDT

  So what you are saying, JuneAnnette, is that Scripture itself says it's inspired by God, and therefore it is inspired by God. That makes no sense whatsoever - if I say that this post is inspired by the Holy Spirit (and it may well be), that proves absolutely nothing. A text referring to itself does not prove inspiration - in fact, if every book of the Bible began with the words "this book is inspired by the Holy Spirit", it would not mean that it's true: all it would show is that the author believed that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. As for Sola Scriptura: your quote from 2 Timothy likewise proves nothing. Paul says rightly that all Scripture is inspired and that it is profitable for teaching - "profitable" being being the operative word. It is one thing to say that all inspired writing "has its uses", but it is a huge leap to go from that - what Paul actually said - to saying that only inspired writing need be followed. As to the saying that one must be subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff for salvation, that is nothing different to what the Church Fathers were saying on the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage and Origen, who wrote: "If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation...Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death".

• JuneAnnette | Jun 18, 2011, 02:55 PM EDT

  Carroll09 . . . with respect to your comment: “It is very interesting that you place so much credence on what the Early Church Fathers wrote - so do I”****My reference to Tertullian and Irenaeus was simply to confirm that these men both recognized God's Word as the final authority and the testing stone by which all doctrines were to be tried The canon was not yet completed in their day. Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD) Irenaeus (c. 125 – 202 AD)****The answer to the question of how the apostles' writings come together to form the New Testament canon--the collection of books which are received as genuine and inspired Holy Scripture . . is simple. The Christians and the church simply acknowledged the apostles' authority and accepted their writings, and writings of those intimately associated with them (as Mark and Luke), as part of the Holy Scripture. The church did not put together a canon that made books authoritative because they were included in it. The church only acknowledged what was given by the apostles, and included books in the canon because of this apostolical authority. They never regarded these books as anything else than canonical.****THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

• JuneAnnette | Jun 18, 2011, 12:56 PM EDT

  Carroll09 . . in reply to your comment: “Needless to say, JuneAnnette, you have still not proffered an answer to my question on how you know the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Your claim that Sola Scripture is found in Scripture itself is simply false- nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is all we need for salvation; nor does it say that we need it to believe in Jesus Christ.” ********** MY ANSWER from . . .God's Word . . II Tim. 3:15-17: “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” *********** As to be expected, this is contrary to “the teaching of your church”, which states:***POPE BONIFACE VIII (pope: 1294-1303) ***³We declare, affirm, and define as a truth necessary for salvation that every human being is subject to the Roman Pontiff[i.e., the Pope of Rome].´( 1302) This type of statement is the height of ecclesiastical tyranny and once again shows a complete contempt for the Holy Bible, which nowhere tells us that a requirement for our salvation is to be "subject to the Roman Pontiff". The Lord Jesus Christ alone is the head of the 'body of Christ´and the Christian Church, and not some fallible human pretender to the throne!

• Carroll09 | Jun 17, 2011, 06:56 PM EDT

  ...Or lastly, amongst many other examples, St Augustine: "The custom [of not rebaptizing converts]...may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings", and, "But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church". St Augustine was writing shortly after the Canon had been settled by the Church, and he clearly did not accept that all the necessary pieces of Tradition had been committed to the pages of Scripture. This last piece from St Augustine succintly demonstrates the ancient and current, consistent practice of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church, which is herself "the pillar and foundation of the truth".

• Carroll09 | Jun 17, 2011, 06:55 PM EDT

  ...You quote Irenaeus, but he also said: "That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?". Furthermore, St Basil the Great wrote: "Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term". Further still, St Epiphanius of Salamis wrote: "It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition"...[continued]

• Carroll09 | Jun 17, 2011, 06:54 PM EDT

  Needless to say, JuneAnnette, you have still not proffered an answer to my question on how you know the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Your claim that Sola Scripture is found in Scripture itself is simply false- nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is all we need for salvation; nor does it say that we need it to believe in Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura is an invention of the 16th century "reformers" - they did not "restore" anything. It is very interesting that you place so much credence on what the Early Church Fathers wrote - so do I. However, you keep claiming that the Fathers quoted from the New Testament the Church did not need a council to decide a canon - if that were true, then can we assume that you accept the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture, as the Catholic Church does? After all, the Church Fathers frequently quoted from them: the Didache quote Sirach; Irenaeus quotes Daniel 13 as does Hippolytus; Cyprian of Carthage quotes Daniel 14 and 1 Maccabees; Augustine lists the O.T. canon. Saying that Scripture can be used to confirm Tradition proves nothing since the two are not in conflict - because both, in totality, make up the Word of God...[continued]

• JuneAnnette | Jun 17, 2011, 12:41 PM EDT

  THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!***I share the following FACTS for the benefit of the readers of this thread.***Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a tradition on issues of doctrine that is not found in Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. ***Church historian, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer affirms this fact:***“For Tertullian Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content...For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is”***Source: Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Van Gorcum, 1953, pp. 184, 133, 144

• JuneAnnette | Jun 17, 2011, 12:23 PM EDT

  THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!***I share the following FACTS for the benefit of the readers of this thread.***Both men give us the actual doctrinal content of the apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches, and every doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in that apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture. The apostolic Tradition for Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing in the Scriptures, and the Scriptures have since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church’s faith. His exact statement is as follows: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”.***Source: Alexander Roberts & W.H. Rambaugh Translators, The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874), 3.1.1

• JuneAnnette | Jun 17, 2011, 11:49 AM EDT

  THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!***I share the following FACTS for the benefit of the readers of this thread.***“From the very beginning of the post apostolic age with the writings of what are known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) we find an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras we find the same thing. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation. It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late 2nd century that we first encounter the concept of apostolic Tradition, that was claimed to be handed down in the church in oral form. The word ‘tradition’ simply means teaching. What did Irenaeus and Tertullian mean when they claimed Apostolic Teaching or tradition is handed down orally? All they meant was that the bishops of the church preached the truth orally and anyone interested in learning the true apostolic Tradition could learn it by simply listening to the preaching or oral teaching of the bishops of any orthodox church of the day. But Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.”

• JuneAnnette | Jun 17, 2011, 11:32 AM EDT

  THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!***I share the following FACTS for the benefit of the readers of this thread.***“The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, on the other hand, declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and therefore the Scriptures were not materially sufficient. This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. (It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not). It must be noted that the view espoused by Trent is contradictory to and is a repudiation of the belief and practice of the church of the patristic age. The early church held to the principle of sola Scriptura in that it believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced the doctrine was to be rejected.”

• JuneAnnette | Jun 17, 2011, 11:28 AM EDT

  THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!***I share the following FACTS for the benefit of the readers of this thread. "The 16th century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching; founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature, as being inspired by God, the ultimate authority for the church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God."

• Carroll09 | Jun 16, 2011, 03:15 PM EDT

  Firstly, JuneAnnette, you have not answered the question of how you know that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit? How do you know which books do and do not belong? Secondly, you are still confusing - deliberately perhaps - the Word of God with the Word of God which has been written down (i.e. Sacred Scripture). As I said in my previous post, the Word of God existed long before a sentence of it was written down, as did the Church herself survive before a sentence of a New Testament gospel or epistle was penned. So you are wrong to say that Scripture is the only authority - it is only part of it, and even the Bible itself never claims to be the sole rule of faith. The entire Word of God - expressed in the Church through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and interpreted by the authority of the Magisterium - provides the complete rule of faith.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 16, 2011, 03:06 PM EDT

  This is the 'cart before the horse' scenario, JA. There would have been no complete Canon of biblical texts to quote from, if it was not for the work over the early centuries by the bishops and theologians of the Catholic Church. Indeed Our Saviour is the Word('lOGOS') who has existed for all time and he became the Word made flesh. The NT gospels with the preceding OT texts became the word of God in text. The Church which is the 'pillar and ground' of truth(Timothy 3:15 1) as described by St Paul has the mandated duty to compile, interpret and preach the complete bible which tells us about the Word of God in all it's senses.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 16, 2011, 09:45 AM EDT

  The churches, whatever their constitution, would not exist except that they were instituted and ordered by the Word made flesh who dwelt among us, nor would they have any mandate but for His commandments given to them as to their mission in the world and their conduct in their assemblies. Without the inspired Scriptures, there would be no Matthew 16:18 or I Timothy 3:15 for Rome to even use to attempt to justify itself. Before man was created, the Word of God (He who was revelation to man in the flesh, and of the same Spirit as inspired the Scriptures) made and ordered the universe and all the habitations into which man later would be placed. Christ also said that the house of the wise man must be built upon the immovable rock of His sayings. (Matt. 7:24-29) The Word of God, the Scriptures which God has said He has magnified above all His Name, are from God Himself, God-breathed (theopneustos - qeopneusto$) to the inspired writers of Scripture, thus their origin is God Himself. The potter has power over the clay. Likewise, God through His Word and by right of origination has power over the churches. THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

• JuneAnnette | Jun 16, 2011, 09:44 AM EDT

  The very word "authority" presupposes an "author," a source from whence power and the right to exercise that power are derived. It has long been held by the Roman Catholic religion that within itself, in the offices of the Pope and the Magisterium, is the authority that must be obeyed by all Christians. As part of this claim, Rome supposes to establish its authority over the Bible, God's Word, as well. Yet, to make this claim, Rome ultimately needs to base itself upon the Bible. Without the passages of Scripture which Rome uses to try to prove its position of authority over Christians, there would be no basis for such a claim at all. Both, however, cannot be the source of authority, so which is it - the hierarchy or the Bible?The answer must be the Bible. The precognition of origin demands that the Word of God take precedence over the organization of man into bodies instituted by God, for without that Word, there would be no guidelines for said organization. THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

• Gearoid4 | Jun 16, 2011, 01:30 AM EDT

  The onus is clearly on bishops to report suspected crimes committed by anyone within clerical ranks to the local authorities in the countries which they reside. I agree that things are very much at the discretion of the episcopate and that reporting to the police is suggested rather than mandated and some commentators have suggested that this is due to the varied standards of law-enforcement around the world.

• Carroll09 | Jun 15, 2011, 06:41 PM EDT

  ...Finally, your assertion that everyone can interpret Sacred Scripture thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit is laughable - if that were really true, then why on earth have we over 30,000 Protestant denominations which broke initially from the Catholic Church and then from each other because they didn't like their teachings. So, the Holy Spirit is telling some that Christ is God, and others that He is not; telling them that abortion, divorce, homosexual acts are wrong, and others that they are acceptable. The list goes on...but to insist that all can correctly interpret Scripture on their own, you are asking us to believe that a circle is a square.

• Carroll09 | Jun 15, 2011, 06:41 PM EDT

  ...To say "the Church did not give us the Bible...the Apostles did" is utterly ridiculous, as it seperates the Apostles from the Church. Only a small portion of the N.T. was written by the 12 Apostles; all of it, however was written by them ALONG WITH their successors, and it was also the successors of the Apostles who, in the fourth century, defined the canon of Scripture. If you don't believe that the Church had the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit to define the canon, then why don't you accept the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas as inspired, or indeed, compose your own canon? Given that there much of the New Testament had not been composed - let alone having a defined canon - when Paul wrote 2Timothy, one must wonder what Scripture he was referring to: books that weren't yet written presumably, or more logically, the Old Testament. Your quote from John 14:26 is most interesting- while you use it as a support for Scripture, it is more a support for the teaching authority of the Church (which can certainly be expressed through Scripture). The Spirit would recall to the Apostles what Christ had said so that they could confidently teach - not one word about the Holy Spirit only guiding them via their pen as you would like to have us believe...[continued]

• Carroll09 | Jun 15, 2011, 06:40 PM EDT

  JuneAnnette - quoting that St Paul's letters were to be read to the people does not prove that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. As we know, many of the epistles were written to confirm what had already been preached to the people - to strengthen them in the faith, to encourage them - it was the spoken word, preaching, which came before Scripture, and in the absence of a defined canon which did not appear until the end of the fourth century, it was this preaching which nourished the faithful. To say that the Church is subject to the Word of God - by which you clearly mean the WRITTEN Word of God - is completely illogical, since the Church survived many years and flourished before a single word of the New Testament was penned - so the Church can and did survive without the Bible. The point you miss is that the Word of God existed long before it was written down. The fact, therefore which you conveniently avoid, is that the Word of God is not confined to Scripture - the last sentence of St John's gospel confirms this. Did the Holy Spirit really write it all down - if He did, then he suffered from memory lapses (1Cor.1:16 -"I know not whether I baptised any other") - saying the Holy Sprit wrote the Bible is entirely different from saying that the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...[continued]

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2011, 03:37 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, what part of "Non-mandatory reporting requirement" do you not understand? There's no need for the CDF to tell bishops to cooperate when police officers knock on their doors. The bishops risk prison time if they refuse to cooperate with police investigations and choose instead to obstruct justice by protecting criminal priests. My point is undeniable; just read the document: the Vatican has not directed bishops to report all allegations of clerical sex abuse to police. Resistance to the reforms promised by Vatican II continues stronger than ever. JuneAnnette has made the same point about Christian teachings: the church of Christ is subject to the Word as preserved in scripture, not vice versa, just as the members of the "hierarchy" are subject to the rule of civil law, not vice versa. Like Socrates before him, Christ died at the hands of civil authorities when he might easily have escaped. He chose to obey an unjustly prosecuted law. Without the rule of law, we could scarcely call ourselves civilized--the law to which we are all equally subject. There is no possibility of reform until Benedict XVI begins to behave like a "servant of the servants of God, or a "primus inter pares," rather than an absolute monarch (indeed, some of the anti-reformists are calling for re-establishment not of a Catholic monarchy but of a Catholic empire!). A Church that refuses to reform itself is not a Christian church. Christ taught the disciples to be ever reforming. In matters of monarchy, the Irish have a far better chance of communicating with Queen Liz II than with Benedict XVI, so what is the point of his visit?

• JuneAnnette | Jun 15, 2011, 02:50 PM EDT

  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (II Tim. 3:16-17) It is the Spirit that is the teaching authority of the church not the Pope or any anointed man. The Spirit was sent into the world to convince men of sin, righteousness and judgment. ***“And when he is come, (the Comforter (John 16:7) ) he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” (John 16:8) The church did not give us the Bible . . the apostles did, and they began the church that Jesus founded. The Bible can exist where there is no church building or assembly, but the church cannot exist where there is no Bible. The Holy Spirit wrote it all down so there would be no mistakes. The Holy Spirit is the source of Scripture and all believers are given him to interpret what he wrote. What better guide and teacher can we have than the same one who inspired the apostles to write Scriptures.***“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26) THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

• JuneAnnette | Jun 15, 2011, 02:47 PM EDT

  The TRUTH about the origin of the NEW TESTAMENT***- continued - When the church had its first martyr Stephen, then they were persecuted and scattered, it then became necessary to pen down the teachings. It was from this event that letters were copied and circulated so that the teachings would not be lost or changed. As the apostles went out they shared the writings and commanded them to be passed on to others. The apostles put their writings into circulation through the church. “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” (1 Cor. 1:2 and Eph.1:1) We have examples of letters to be read to all in Scripture 1 Thess.5:27, “to be read to all the church’s” Col.4:16, “read to the church of Colossae and the Laodiceans” Gal.1:21, “to the church’s of Galatia.” Jesus tells John the apostle in Rev 1:11, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”***II Peter 1:21: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

• Carroll09 | Jun 15, 2011, 02:23 PM EDT

  JuneAnnette: firstly, the dates of composition of the individual books of the N.T. are not in question, so your argument on that score is irrelevant. Nor is the fact that the Early Church Fathers quoted them. As Gearoid pointed out, there were many epistles circulating in the early Church- there may not have been anything doctrinally questionable about them, but that does not mean that they can be taken as inspired. The fact that the Church Fathers quoted scriptural and non-scriptural texts is not proof that such and such a book is worthy of a place in the canon of Scripture. If it were a valid proof, then Protestants would have no problem accepting the deuterocanonicals as inspired texts, since they too were quoted by the Church Fathers. The fact that different books were in circulation in the early Church does not take away from the fact that it was the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (and later ratified by Pope Innocent I) which books did and DID NOT belong in the canon. So, perhaps what I should have asked is how do you know that the books of the Bible are inspired? You are right to claim that Christ's Word is truth- however, Christ's Word extends far beyond the pages of Sacred Scripture, which cannot be taken as the sole rule of faith- the Bible itself acknowledges this, as did the Early Church Fathers, and so does the Catholic Church today.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 15, 2011, 02:03 PM EDT

  The TRUTH about the origin of the NEW TESTAMENT***Part II*** There originally was no church council to decide what books were to be included in the canon. They were recognized by the consensus of the entire body of the church not by a council of bishops. The books were written under the inspiration of God, they were canonical the moment they were written. A council was not necessary to affirm what was already true. No book became canonical by the action of a church council in the same way the Old Testament books were not decided upon by the Sanhedrin. What the council did was to determine which books did not meet the tests for canonicity. There were no books written from 30-45 A.D. because believers had access to the apostles who were living eyewitnesses. So there was no immediate concern to write it down. The New Testament began to be penned down approximately 15-20 years after the ascension. Since many of the apostles were alive there was no reason to write, they also thought Christ’s return was imminent so it was not necessary.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 15, 2011, 01:30 PM EDT

  JA, there were many biblical texts in competition with each other during the centuries before their final compilation during the Council of Carthage. Books like the The Epistle of Barnabus or the Shepherd of Hermas were accepted by some Christian communities and rejected by others. They never made it to the official Canon. The canonical reliability of the book of Revelation was even disputed by some Eastern church communities in the early centuries. The heretical Gnostic texts were also a source of disputation. So you see, it did take a Great Council involving bishops from the Catholic world to arrive at a final consensus regarding the index of books to include in the bible as we pretty much know it today.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 15, 2011, 01:14 PM EDT

  Carro1109, The TRUTH about the origin of the NEW TESTAMENT***We can produce almost all the New Testament from the church fathers writings and quotations before the year 150 A.D. proving that there was no church government to approve of what was in or out. The Scripture is God breathed, its origin is with God, it is not man given (2 Pt.1:21). The churches commission is to protect and promote the word as she is the pillar and ground of truth. Jesus said HE was the TRUTH (John 14:6) and HIS WORD was TRUTH. (John 17:17) To abandon this source puts one outside being called the church. All the New Testament books were written between 45-75 A.D. excluding the apostle John's writings, which occurred later in 80-95 A.D. There were schools of Scribes (scholia) that copied the Scripture by hearing, also lecture rooms were people would copy down what they heard. From the beginning the church copied and shared the original documents to circulate the apostles writings. By 170 A.D. Most of the Bible had already been approved and read by the church and the term New Testament was in use. This was long before any council. The Roman church says they proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament. Actually the Catholic Church in 397 at the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 15, 2011, 12:47 PM EDT

  Eiriamach, what part of the following statement do you not understand.."It is important to cooperate with such authority(civil) within their responsibilities.." as quoted from the updated Canon Law from Carroll09. Although judicial systems can differ from country to country, it is incumbent upon each nation's bishops to fully co-operate with the relevant civil powers in the investigations regarding cases of sex-abuse by a member of their clergy Also each bishop must have in place by spring of next year a credible strategy to combat this scourge. The loopholes are getting reduced effectively so as to prevent predatory suspects from wriggling off the hook.

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2011, 12:14 PM EDT

  "Non-mandatory reporting requirement." "Oxymoron" = a contradiction in terms, a statement that is necessarily false because its words contradict each other. Example: "walking dead man" "alone in a crowd," "constructive divorce," "jumbo shrimp," etc. Many oxymorons are jokes, but they can be howlingly funny even when they are not intended to be humorous.

• Collette2 | Jun 15, 2011, 04:48 AM EDT

  Jaceragain, that was around the time Mike Cleary was destroying the life of the woman he used for years; May she rest in peace. coercing her to relinquish their firstborn. Their second child, the church abandoned too having to fight to have his true identity. His family were also a damned disgrace by not acknowledging their own kith and kin. Women and children, the most vulnerable of the church. Good timing, this new Papal visit. Eamon Casey, another hypocritical and cowardly cleric protected by the church hierarchy.

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2011, 03:42 AM EDT

  Yes, Carroll09, you've supplied the quotation that supports my point: only if the civil law REQUIRES reporting do the bishops' guidelines need to make any "provisions" for reporting allegations of abuse. The pope should have directed the bishops always to report any allegations of abuse and let trained police officers--not bishops--investigate the reports. The fox is still guarding the hen house.... Meanwhile, the bishops' conferences continue to lobby against adequate state laws to protect and secure the rights of victims of abuse. Meanwhile, the Vatican continues to protect Cardinal Bernard Law from prosecution for his many cover-ups of child abuse. There's a grand jury waiting in Boston for Cardinal Law, but the pope provides him with sanctuary in Rome, where he works in the bosom of the Church. The pope is determined that the world will see the Vatican and the "princes of the Church" as above civil law. A true Christian, however, would do the utmost to ensure that civil law can reach the abusers and their cover-up agents and deal justly with them. Christ submitted to the authority of civil law; he did not try to insulate himself or his disciples from it, even when it persecuted them unjustly. Churchmen are not above the law, and the criminals among them should be doing hard time in prison along with other criminals.

• jacersagain | Jun 14, 2011, 08:15 PM EDT

  McNamara31 has made an excellent post in response to my ‘lengthy’ ones. At least I now know s/he and others are reading them. ¬ No, McN, I’m like you, I’m not an editor. But I do get a distasteful sense when people who have misguidedly captured people like JuneAnnette choose to use an agendum or agenda of their own when they pick and choose and abuse a noun or verb in the headline of an article to pursue an attack on the Church that you and I and many others constitute. If I were an editor, I’d insist that people address the topic of an article and block any other contribution that does not address the article’s subject. >> What about you? What d’ye think about the Eucharistic Congress being held in Ireland next year? Will you be there? Whadd’ya think about our Pope getting off his desk-bound arse, getting off the pilgrim feet-worn shiny marble slabs and stones of the world and his gravel-worn knotted praying knees to come to the fresh green fields of Ireland to pray with the true Catholics of Ireland? I think it’s great – after all, he’s as human as me and you. By O’Shea’s article above, the Holiness of a Pope making the effort to promote Christ’s message through the Eucharist at the Congress in Ireland next June is something to fantastically look forward to. >>> Sheesh! It just hit me that Niall O’Dowd could be the President of Ireland, required by protocol to be in attendance at something he doesn’t believe in! Whow-eeh!

• Carroll09 | Jun 14, 2011, 06:57 PM EDT

  Eiriamach - you said: "The Vatican's recent directive to the bishops still does not require that they report allegations of clerical sex abuse to civil authorities. The bishops must try to keep problems in house". Am I right in presuming that you are referring to the letter from the CDF to the bishops of the world, dated May 3, 2011, which states in the very first paragraph that provisions must be made when drawing up guidelines for responding to abuse for "the requirements of civil law"? Or Part I of the same letter, section (e) which states: "Sexual abuse of minors is not just a canonical delict but also a crime prosecuted by civil law. Although relations with civil authority will differ in various countries, nevertheless it is important to cooperate with such authority within their responsibilities. Specifically, without prejudice to the sacramental internal forum, the prescriptions of civil law regarding the reporting of such crimes to the designated authority should always be followed. This collaboration, moreover, not only concerns cases of abuse committed by clerics, but also those cases which involve religious or lay persons who function in ecclesiastical structures". Many dioceses in the world already have structures in place which demand that allegations be reported to civil authorities, but the letter from the CDF has demanded that every Conference of Bishops in the world is to submit a copy of its completed guidelines to the CDF by the end of May 2012. It seems very clear to me, Eiriamach, that your claims are the exact opposite to what has actually been demanded of bishops by the Vatican.

• Carroll09 | Jun 14, 2011, 06:25 PM EDT

  JuneAnnette - how well able you are to quote Sacred Scripture. You are to be commended for that...sadly you would have no New Testament to quote if it weren't for the Catholic Church...Your assertion that Christ built a Church on His Word is rubbish - did He tell the Apostles to compile a book? How did the Church survive for the first four centuries before Christians got the Bible the Catholic Church uses today? It survived precisely because Christ founded a living Church on Peter - yes, a mere man, but it is exactly because He called Peter the Rock that we know that the Church most certainly is not crumbling. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link - Peter may well have been the weakest, and Pope Benedict is the 265th link in that chain - but that weakest link is held in the hand of Christ Himself, and this is why we can take Him at his word that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church.

• McNamara31 | Jun 14, 2011, 05:08 PM EDT

  jacersagain... Did you ever think of starting your own blog? That way you could "control" it completely as you are trying to do here. How would you enjoy other people trying to control your rather lengthy posts? People have opinions; even if many times we agree to disagree, they remain our opinions. Last time I checked I did not see your name listed as "editor".

• jacersagain | Jun 14, 2011, 04:46 PM EDT

  BTW – IMHO, the discussion between Gearoid4 and McNamara is neither here nor there under Mr. O’Shea’s article and it has been already discussed in depth on ICentral. Can we talk about the meaning of a Eucharistic Congress, especially for us Catholics – and the great gesture of the busiest person in the world, our Catholic Pope, getting off His Holiness’ chair-bound butt, slipping on his inherited Peter’s Fisherman Shoes just to come to wee oul' Ireland to celebrate this Global Spiritual Event with us Irish??

• jacersagain | Jun 14, 2011, 04:35 PM EDT

  (...more) As I said, this article by John O’Shea is about the Pope of the Catholic Church - of which like a billion others I feel very privileged and blessed to be a member of - coming to Ireland as our chief Spiritual Pastor to attend the Eucharistic Congress. Do people knocking the Pope and faithful Catholics under this article even know what a Eucharistic Congress is?? I suggest to anybody using this article for any purpose other than comment on the article itself that they push their boats off up or down to another stream and offer their points of view under a relevant article (and we’ve all been through so many of those already on ICentral that it’s past approaching burn-out). >> On the article, again I say that I’m looking forward to the Eucharistic Congress next year, where Irish (and all) Catholics can stand alongside their Pope as the spiritual descendant of St. Peter and leader of our Church in prayer before the Holy Eucharist, the living Body of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. If you outside want in, come in from the cold and be welcome, otherwise stay a lost lamb by your own choice and pray (as we Catholics do every day) that the Good Shepherd finds you and directs you home safely to His Father’s House.

• jacersagain | Jun 14, 2011, 04:30 PM EDT

  Pardon error in last post - "On the odd occasion that she posts "thoughts2, should read "what appear to be her own thoughts"

• jacersagain | Jun 14, 2011, 04:26 PM EDT

  I see JuneAnnette (JA) is back again, spouting her usual brain-washed stuff, God help her (I really, really do feel for her). Under previous articles to which JA contributed, I’ve pointed out that the Comment Box under articles that ICentral posts asks “What do you think?”... Here’s what I think: Firstly, JA has wasted so much space, and her own time, typing out and posting extracts from books by other people to make a point; she’s clearly brain-washed and unable to think for herself and post what SHE thinks, or argue a point of discussion without referring to other sources. While I am always keen to read and appreciate people’s views (whether I agree w/ them or not), I don’t need extracts from self-centred authors’ books shoved before my face on my computer screen. I don’t need quotes from the Bible shoved in my face either... I’m a Catholic and the Bible is part of my life. I now ignore any post by JA when she uses quotation marks or referrals to other websites in her posts. On the odd occasion that she posts "thoughts2, I always feel they are not her own, that someone else is writing the words because they are so much at variance from JA might think if she was free of who's holding her in thrall. Secondly, John O’Shea’s article above is about the proposed visit of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to Ireland for the Eucharistic Congress next year. Why JA is using the Comment Box to push her unchristian venom on the Catholic Church is beyond me. I’m also disappointed to see excellent posters like Carroll09, eiriamach and Gearoid4 being waylaid by irrelevant, irreverent comments of others e.g. ‘Portia’ and ‘unconvinced’ under this article. Please don’t waste your time attacking us Irish Catholics or our Church - we, like St. Patrick, pray each day to have Christ within us, Christ behind us, Christ before us, Christ beside us and no one can beat Christ’s protection of us, especially Satan’s anti-Catholic ‘mouthers’ and posters. (More...)

• Gearoid4 | Jun 14, 2011, 03:27 PM EDT

  Abuse of one child is one child too many and the just deserts given to the perpetrator(s). The Catholic Church is in the eye of a media storm over this and a lot of it is self-inflicted. There is little doubt in that. But what other world body or Church has so comprehensive a list of guidelines and sanctions in law to speed up justice where before it was at times non-existent or proceeding at a snail's pace. Yes, McNamara, we can go over this again. Benedict as CDF urged his Blessed predecessor to hand him personally the files concerning the cases involving charges against sex abuse of children by priests. He initiated steps to establish a system to streamline these cases. During the obsequies for Pope John Paul 11, he used the word 'filth' to describe such activities during his homelie. He has personally embraced sex-abuse victims on a number of occasions while travelling abroad. I would say that he had done more collectively than all his predecessors to face this unprecedented crisis but a solid start has been made. JuneAnnette you use large block capitals to illustrate the apocalyptic points that you are making regarding the Church. It will not implode as Christ promised that he would be with her until the end of time and that the gates of hell would not prevail. House-cleaning is taking place. A lot of righteous anger is justifiable in the event of the non-accountability of some bishops for their dereliction of duty and they deserve a blast of ire in the style that OT prophets would use.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 14, 2011, 02:32 PM EDT

  The Roman Catholic “church” is in self-destruct mode imploding from within. Your priests . . your bishops . . your cardinals . . your pope . . those who presumptuously call themselves "Christ's Representatives" and “princes of the church” have given the religion of Christ a bad name! Even the irreligious . . the professed atheist can see that the hypocritical conduct and the flagrant abuse of power exhibited by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in it's handling of the ongoing Clergy Abuse Scandal is wholly inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. In truth . . . the foundations of the self-proclaimed “one true church of Jesus Christ” are crumbling / collapsing under the insupportable weight of the rot and corruption of lies, deceit and cover up that lurks beneath the surface of its’ pretentious pious exterior. A religious institution that has consistently been proven to place its' corporate image and the reputation of her priests above the welfare of children provides compelling reasons to opt out.***It is my heartfelt prayer that these things may serve as a wake up call for Roman Catholics and that many will hear and heed the voice of the Lord as it is found in Rev. 18:4 “. . . Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” The protection and welfare of children SHOULD BE the concern of everyone in society, and is embraced in what Christ said was the 2nd greatest commandment, namely, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matt. 22:39b)

• McNamara31 | Jun 14, 2011, 02:31 PM EDT

  Gearoid4... Are you really unaware of the amount of letters that were sent to Benedict in his time as leader of the CDF and after? Must we rehash the correspondence to the Vatican from the early 1980's and after? All has been documented by the Boston Globe, the NYT, by Fr. Tom Doyle and others. The plain and simple is Benedict and the Vatican took decades to take real action while real little children were left to fend for themselves against abusing priests. Have you ever read the letters from the mothers of the abused children in Boston pleading with the church (that they loved) to take proper measures with abusing priests? I have. When the Vatican and Benedict did not act they became part of the problem not the resolution. The actions they did take were too little too late. Please understand I am not disparaging the church. If we all act like this didn't happen it will never truly be corrected.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 14, 2011, 01:41 PM EDT

  “For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth.” Ephesians 5:9***What a mockery the Roman Catholic relgion has made of the religion of Christ and His Doctrine. Your priests, bishops, cardinals and pope are nothing more than modern day scribes and pharisees, whom the Lord Jesus Christ on several occasions rebuked & censored unreservedly. More compelling evidence of the widespread corruption of the plague of pedophilia that rages within the ranks of Roman Catholicism:***Article: 'The Land of Lost Children'/Source: The Age / Australia / June 2, 2011***Article: “We were excluded from the Redress system” - Ireland / June 13, 2011 / Source: paddydoyle.com, Paddy Doyle's Blog***The time is come to expose the depraved men of the cloth in the RCC who subjected vulnerable children to a life of terror and torment, whom they abused with impunity and intimidated into silence.The time is come to expose the sick and twisted Romish paedophile priests who stole their innocence and consigned them to a life of unrelenting misery, fear, & trauma, reducing them to nothing more than chattel to be passed among themselves as play things to satisfy their insatiable and depraved sexual appetites. Time to tell the world of the forgotten children, whose harrowing stories of degradation, humiliation, shame, pain, suffering and sorrow cry unto Heaven above for justice and redress.Ex. 22:22-23: “Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry . ." May God be pleased, in His mercy and providence, to bring the uncensored . . unedited account of these unspeakable crimes to light!***The R.C. COVER UP continues . . GOOGLE: 'Catholicabusesurvivorsni'

• Gearoid4 | Jun 14, 2011, 01:39 PM EDT

  There are no excuses being offered for the heinous crimes committed by those who are supposed to be representatives of Christ or the subsequent cover-ups. These wicked crimes and those who cover them up should suffer the full rigor of the law. Now people suggest that there was a world-wide conspiracy which was run from HQ in Rome and so far there has been no credible proof of this. We can only deal with the evidence as gleaned from reliable coverage and reporting of these stories in the media and first hand accounts from victims. These cases should have been dealt at the local diocesan level with canon law used with full severity where appropriate and the civil law involved in pursuing prosecutions where necessary. It has been a very steep learning curve for hierarchies in the Western world but the US episcopate seem to be ahead of the game with strict legal sanctions in place since 2002. I only hope that this scourge is reduced to such an extent that the Church is the safest place to bring children.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 14, 2011, 12:35 PM EDT

  I would strongly urge the participants at this forum, especially those who relentlessly seek to defend and /or absolve their “church leaders” of responsibility / accountability regarding the GLOBAL R.C. CLERGY ABUSE SCANDAL of the SYSTEMATIC ABUSE of CHILDREN and the COVER UP of their CRIMES by R.C. HIERARCHY to read the following article: 'Michael Corry's letter to the Irish Times 19 May 2005' posted here: 'paddydoyle.com', the blog of Paddy Doyle, Victim's Advocate***EXCERPT: “There is emerging evidence that the Redress Board re-traumatises victims.One patient of mine used this analogy. “An adult, man or woman, abuses a child. It is their ‘secret’. To make sure the ‘secret’ is kept the adult will give the child money or sweets. They buy silence. By making secrecy a condition upon payment, the board is doing exactly what an abuser does to a child.”The elements of restorative justice which are required for the restitution of balance and healing are transparency instead of secrecy, formal apologies, the punishment of the wrongdoers, and supreme efforts to compensate for damage done. The Redress Board embodies none of these. Its role makes a mockery of the legal system, and of the Goddess Themis, whose scales are the symbols of Right and Justice. It is my firm belief that the Redress Board contravenes the most basic of human and civil rights. In short, it represents a crime against humanity. It should be abolished immediately and replaced by an open forum where the victim is not only properly monetarily compensated, but where they can have their perpetrators named, and the scales of justice balanced.”***NOTE: Paddy Doyle is an Author, Disability Rights Campaigner and Advocate for Victims of Institutional Abuse.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 14, 2011, 12:02 PM EDT

  Where is the evidence, McNamara that Pope Benedict during his time as head of the CDF "orchestrated" a conspiracy to hide evidence that child-abuse was happening in priestly ranks on a global scale? The NY times and certain news-agencies have tried to pin that charge on him by distorting and spinning certain stories in a pernicious way. The failure of bishops to remove and monitor predatory priests and the subsequent cover-ups are symptomatic of the corrupting effects of unaccountable clericalism across the globe. This is on top of the original crimes that these priests have committed. Canon law was seldom used and it provided legal sanctions in the removal of offending priests. Pope Benedict both as head prefect of the CDF and as the present pope has considerably tightened up existing Church law to fight this scourge and expedite the removal of priests proven to have committed such crimes JulieAnnette you refer to a Richard Bennett, who is a disaffected, former Catholic priest, hardly an unbiased source. Most reputable, biblical exegetists(including protestant ones) agree that Matthew 16.18 indeed refers to Jesus passing on the keys of authority to Peter(formerly Simeon) and started the lineage that extends down to the present pope. Unconvinced, you seem right out of the Paisleyite school of bible fundamentalism. You refer to the pope as the 'man of sin' a term much used by your since-retired mentor. Your distorted reading of scripture gives up no surprizes. Eiriamach, your idiotic statement that seminaries will continue to experience influxes of child-rapists does not correspond with the modern realities of seminary life in terms of the thorough testing that is conducted to weed-out such suspect candidates. Prospective seminarians have to go through a veritable battery of psychological probing before they are accepted

• Carroll09 | Jun 14, 2011, 11:43 AM EDT

  McNamara - Dr Monica Applewhite is an expert on organisations with histories of sexual abuse. The Irish board for safeguarding children in the Catholic Church invited her to address the Irish bishops on March 10, 2009. She said: "From the 1950's to the 1980's, these treatment-based interventions for sexual criminals were not only enormously prevalent in the United States, but surveys of ordinary citizens showed that they were enormously popular...The science of human sexuality and sexual offending is extraordinarily young. Virtually all of the information we utilise today regarding the treatment and supervision of sexual offenders has been discovered since 1985...[during the 1970's] the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing [as the Church] with convicted offenders - sending them to treatment instead of prison". Regarding what the Vatican did and did not know, it is important to remember that sexual abuse of children has always been a crime in Church law, and individual bishops had the authority in canon law to deal with offenders without ever involving the Vatican. The tragic case of Lawrence Murphy illustrates this, where the bishops had the power to deal with him and they gravely failed in their duty of care. It is also worthwhile noting that the number of allegations of abuse against priests in the U.S. was 6 in 2009, 10 in 2008, 4 in 2007, 14 in 2006 and 9 in 2005 - while not excusing even 1 case of abuse, contrast these numbers with the results of the John Jay study which found that 10667 individuals made allegations against 4392 priests between 1950 & 2002. This dramatic decline has not come about suddenly, rather is the result of clear policies and attempts over the past two and a half decades to tackle the problem.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 14, 2011, 11:12 AM EDT

  The reflections of former R.C. Priest, Richard Bennett on the R.C. POPE/ Part II***Inside myself I was already debating the premise of whether or not he held the keys of the Apostle Peter. So painful was the evening to me that when it came to the end and each priest was to have a personal photograph taken together with the Pope, I quietly left. In driving home in the pouring tropical rain, it seemed as if dark clouds had come down on my presupposition. How could this man claim to have the authority and power of Peter since in most respects he was utterly different in manner and message from St. Peter? I thought of the account of Cornelius, “Cornelius met him [Peter] and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, saying, stand up; I myself also am a man.”1 From that evening on, I knew that I had to begin analyzing in earnest the famous text in Matthew’s gospel, blazoned in stone in Latin on St. Peter’s basilica in Rome, “Tu est Petrus”. I wish to share the thoughts I had then and now as I have continued to study the precious Word of the Lord.

• JuneAnnette | Jun 14, 2011, 11:10 AM EDT

  The reflections of a former Roman Catholic Priest on the POPE: Article: 'The Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter' / By Richard Bennett, Biblical Apologist & former R.C.**EXCERPT: For most Catholics, the authority of the Pope as derived from Peter is the main corner-stone of their faith. For the others, it is the lifesaver to fall back on when all else fails. In my own life, it was a presupposition that I did not question until the very end of my years as a priest. I did begin to investigate seriously the Pope’s position when John Paul II came to visit Trinidad in 1985. I remember the loud and pompous ceremony of that day in the Port-of-Spain stadium. Vivid in my mind is the memory of the veneration given to the Pope by the crowds as he entered the stadium. The people rose and with one voice continued to shout, “JP, we love you”, accompanied by the rhythmic beat of bongo drums. The Pope bowed in recognition to the adulation.

• McNamara31 | Jun 14, 2011, 10:03 AM EDT

  Carroll09...I am well aware of what was done by Benedict in his role of Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith and then as pope. No other person in church leadership saw and decided policy over the worldwide abuse crisis more than Benedict. From the first detailed reports sent to the Vatican in the early days through today Benedict was hands on. What do you think Christ would have thought of their inaction? Christ who had no patience for hypocrites as shown many times throughout the Bible. What would He have thought of the criminals? Let’s be clear, when someone knows of the abuse of a child and orchestrates to conceal this activity; that is criminal. And please don’t attempt to tell me Benedict didn’t see the reports that were sent to him. In many cases the American bishops had to wait months regarding a response from the Vatican on what to do with a child rapist in there mist. Your post below also states the church was getting misinformation from the specialists of the day which again is in most part outright false. It was reported time and time again even in the early days that these abusers could not be rehabilitated and “must not be reassigned to work with children”. As early as the 1960’s Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the respected founder of The Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete attempted to treat such priests using the same spiritual methods that he used with his other troubled priests. However, he grew convinced of the futility of treating sexually abusive priests. Fitzgerald came to oppose “vehemently” the return of sexual abusers to duties as parish priests. He wrote regularly to” bishops” in the United States and to “Vatican officials”, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood could not be cured and should be defrocked immediately. If you think the church acted on their own and in good faith then why did it take decades and in the case of the U.S. over 2.6 billion in pay outs?

• eiriamach | Jun 14, 2011, 09:54 AM EDT

  Reform has not yet begun in the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican's recent directive to the bishops still does not require that they report allegations of clerical sex abuse to civil authorities. The bishops must try to keep problems "in house." While the Vatican MAY waive canonical statutes of limitations for cases against priests, the bishops' conferences are still lobbying in the US against attempts to extend statutes of limitations on sex abuse cases. What is "penitence" worth when the penitent is paying millions of $$$ to escape punishment for sin? And when the USCCB are scapegoating 1970s feminists for the sins of rapist priests, there is no likelihood whatever that seminaries will not continue to have influxes of young men looking for access to vulnerable children. Real reform would include recognizing the equal worth of all God's people, and youth are especially in need of encouragement and strategies against depression (see the articles on IC about teen depression and suicides). Yet last week the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments prohibited young women from serving mass celebrated in the EF--in an obvious and insulting act of discrimination. Priests are to tell young women that they are not worthy to approach the altar of God to serve but that young men are worthy! All of these refusals of reform are truly an abomination. Oh, and if you think it was expensive to host Q. Liz and Obama, you ain't seen nuttin' yet--take a look at how much the recent papal visit cost the British.

• Collette2 | Jun 14, 2011, 06:49 AM EDT

  No wonder the church has lasted all these centuries. With the certitude of infallibility, full supreme papal power of juristriction over government, dicipline, faith and morals, who would'nt believe they can move mountains, and nothing to do with faith. Those who get in the way, collateral damage. Our 21st tragedy that will be paled into oblivion and they know it.

• unconvinced | Jun 14, 2011, 04:15 AM EDT

  You cannot compare the Queen and the popes visit on the samr level. THe pope is the man of sin and rules over the most wicked system imaginable. The worst thing is that parents continue to take their children along to mass houses. When you really think about it there is something very very wrong, with popery, surely any right thinking person can see that . Romanism is a religion of fear and when fear grips you it completely controls your thinking and you just end up continuinhg in error and false doctrine

• Carroll09 | Jun 13, 2011, 07:36 PM EDT

  McNamara - your assertion that Pope Benedict only acted because he was forced is absolutely false. He was leading the way in the Church for developing more effective ways of dealing with child abuse. Some of the changes he developed in canon law, which I outlined in my previous post, had their roots in his earliest days as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the 1980's, a time when even many of our eminent psychiatrists were still telling the world that abusers could be "cured". In fact, Pope Benedict was moving far quicker to grasp the problem than many both inside and outside the Church, and it was certainly not because he was forced to do so. Pope Benedict most certainly will be judged like you and I, but anyone on this side of heaven who sincerely examines what he has actually done will have to conclude that he has been unwaivering in his determination to persevere with the mammoth task of ridding the Church of what he himself has described as filth.

• JBRAFTREE | Jun 13, 2011, 06:27 PM EDT

  Portia, I don't think you're right! I believe the visits of the Queen, Our King, and the Pope should have an economic impact on Ireland. I did my level best to help the economy when I was there last month buying a hugh amount of football and sports jerseys, massively overpriced as they were.

• Portia777 | Jun 13, 2011, 04:32 PM EDT

  time is up now since the Pope gave Eire and all her people as slaves to the Britsh crown to keep us under control.So now he returns to renew the contract. Do we want to agree to this on behalf of our children? Irish people wake up.

• jacersagain | Jun 13, 2011, 03:08 PM EDT

  I am delighted to hear this news and I hope the visit takes place (Who knows but given Pope Benedict’s age, he might be too frail to travel or, God forbid, not be around in 12 months times and there could be a new Pope in place). I was privileged to be a steward at the Mass Pope John Paul II celebrated in the Phoenix Park when he visited in 1979 – I was one of those marshalling the area behind the altar but still had a good view of him and especially of the vast crowd of over 1 million people spread out in front of the altar. Pope JP II dedicated his ministry to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pope Benedict has dedicated his ministry to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, so being in attendance at the Eucharistic Congress will have a special importance for him. When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope, I was not initially enamoured with him but since then, I’ve found a whole new respect for him. I was very taken by his excellent speeches during his visit to Britain, especially the one to the British Parliamentarians; even Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, an atheist, was visibly impressed when he spoke on spiritual matters. I particularly enjoyed the service of Benediction that was transmitted live on British television and so I would love to attend Mass and Benediction with Pope Benedict if his Holiness comes here.

• AngelPrecious | Jun 13, 2011, 02:52 PM EDT

  Geee, McNamara, you feel that Martin should be a cardinal when he is in support of gay priests, gay unions and the like??? Here is a quote: Martin again spoke on this topic when, in his homily at the pro-cathedral on Holy Thursday 2009, he said that "the two biggest problems facing young people were the Catholic Church's condemnation of gay couples and the question of suicide". Ummm, nahhhhh, that couldn't be part of the problem!

• McNamara31 | Jun 13, 2011, 12:43 PM EDT

  Carroll09 Ignorance, you say? One thing I know for sure, just as you and I will be judged one day for our action, so will Benedict and all clergy that were quiet while children suffered. Yes, reforms did come, far too little too late, and mostly because they were forced, not because they acted on their own.

• Carroll09 | Jun 13, 2011, 11:50 AM EDT

  McNamara31 - it's a pity that you seem to be quite ignorant of the work that Pope Benedict has actually done to address the abuse crisis in the Church. Within months of his election as Pope, for example, he dealt with the case of the Legionaries of Christ & Fr Marciel, launching a fresh and fruitful investigation when others had failed. Even while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger included the crime of internet offenses against children in Canon Law, extended child-abuse offenses to include sexual abuse of all under 18, a case-by-case waiving of the statute of limitations, a system to help fast-track the dismissal of offenders from the priesthood. As Pope he has introduced further measures to deal with the issue, as well as issuing several apologies and meeting with victims on his various travels. Anyone who seriously evaluates what Pope Benedict has done to address the crisis, they can only conclude that he has been very much part of the solution, not the problem. I for one will enthusiastically welcome Pope Benedict to Ireland - his six-year reign as Pope (so far!) has brought many fruitful reforms to the Church, and all faithful Catholics should be grateful to the Lord for appointing him as the 265th successor of St Peter.

• McNamara31 | Jun 13, 2011, 10:19 AM EDT

  When the abuse scandal broke in Boston in 2002-2003 (and after reading the grand jury report) I wrote this pope and expressed the horror this parent felt at how the church had handled itself under his leadership. Now in 2011, Ireland still shakes in the wake of their abuse crisis yet Ireland is wiser for the years that have past between the initial scandals and now. Ten years ago I could never think of saying this, yet I hope everyplace he visits I hope the Irish people let him know loud and clear what has happened to "their" church under his watch. When we read the recent article about Archbishop Diarmuid Martin who was passed over for Cardinal for being too vocal about the true state of affairs, it tells me the same rewards for silence, and punishment for speaking out is still going on under Benedict’s rein. The only hope for us to regain our faith (in the church) is when a new Pope takes over and puts church leadership back on a spiritual path rather than the corporate one that got us here today.

• antoman | Jun 13, 2011, 09:32 AM EDT

  He can field strip and operate a MP40.This should be made known to Bishops and priests in Ireland.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 13, 2011, 08:52 AM EDT

  Even though the Irish Church is going through a 'dark night of the soul' in terms of the current crises which surrounds them, I welcome this visit. The Church should wisely utilize the upcoming Eucharistic Congress as a means of revitalizing the faith at both the parish and diocesan level across Ireland. Without underestimating the nature and scale of the problems besetting Irish Catholicism, this is an unique opportunity to turn over a new leaf on the road to recovery.