37 Comments

• JuneAnnette | Aug 03, 2011, 10:42 AM EDT

  Collette 2, I just noticed that I provided the source for the prior comment I made, but I neglected to inform you that . . . Dr. Joseph Zacchello trained for the Roman Catholic priesthood in Italy and served as a priest in New York! I thought you would want to know what his credentials are.

• JuneAnnette | Aug 01, 2011, 01:12 PM EDT

  Collette2, some additional thoughts for your consideration***The Apostle Paul did not believe Peter was chief; in fact: (a) Paul mentioned Peter more than once but he never mentioned him with any special title of honor, such as vicar or pope, or gave any indication that he held him above any of the other apostles. (b) Paul taught that those who attached themselves to Peter (or to any other apostle or person) as a distinct group were guilty of schism, because Christ is the head (1 Cor. 1:12-13; 3:22). (c) Paul did not mention the papacy when referring to the officers of the church (1 Cor. 12:29, Eph. 4:11). (d) Paul as an apostle claimed authority over the Roman church itself (Rom. 1:5-6; 16:17). (e) Paul was “behind the very chiefest apostle in nothing” (2 Cor. 12:11-12).(f) Paul expressly denied that Peter was the pope and further maintained that whatever Peter was to the Jews, he, Paul, was to the Gentiles. This certainly is incompatible with any idea of a pope in Paul’s day (Gal. 2:7,8). (g) Paul rebuked Peter without any mention of Peter’s supremacy (Gal. 2:11).[1] If Peter was chief, it was the duty of Paul and of the apostles to recognize him as such, respect him as chief and teach in their writings that he was the chief; but neither the gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles nor the Revelation ever mention it.[2]Sources: 1) Joseph Zacchello, Secrets of Romanism (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1948), 43-44.; 2)James D. Bales as quoted by Zacchello, 44.***CHRIST is the HEAD of HIS CHURCH!***”And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:” (Colossians 1:18: Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)

• Collette2 | Jul 31, 2011, 08:43 PM EDT

  JuneAnnette, just love the quote and exposition of Cornelius.

• JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:15 AM EDT

  I offer the concluding remarks of Richard Bennett, Biblical Apologist and former Roman Catholic priest, and whom I regard as my “brother in the Lord”, taken from his timely article entitled: 'The Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter' in which he expounds Matthew 16 . . . EXCERPT: Whatever his contemporaries apprehended Christ to be, this text of Scripture plainly shows that the disciples had a distinct knowledge of Him, expressed without hesitation by Peter on their behalf. The Lord attributes this intuitive knowledge that He was “the Christ” (Anointed-Messiah) and “the Son of the Living God” (co-eternal with the Father and therefore likewise God) to be a revelation from His Father in heaven. It is this revelation, the Lord declared, that would become the rock or foundation stone upon which He would build His Church. This cannot be argued against as it is the very concluding subject of the Lord’s charge to the disciples, “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” To hold the view that Peter himself is the rock is to deliberately pervert the plain sense of the Lord’s own words. To infer that the Church was built upon a mere man—and not upon God’s revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God—is to insult Christ’s doctrine and corrupt God’s Word." God's Word as it is found in Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body." Source: BereanBeacon

• JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:05 AM EDT

  The Roman Catholic "popes" not only accept, but demand, such homage, even to the extent that men, including the cardinals, prostrate themselves on the floor before a newly elected pope or when making ordination vows before him and kiss his foot. Also the popes accept the title of "HOLY FATHER" as theirs as a matter of right. Was Peter ever called by the title "HOLY FATHER"? It is not uncommon to read of dignitaries and heads of state who prostrate themselves before the pope and kiss his ring. Roman Catholicism is not the bride of Christ, but the wh_ _ re as depicted in God's Word in Rev. 17 & 18 ! The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the true Christian Church and not some pretender to the throne! It is to CHRIST ALONE that true Christians revere and bow before, and to whom in love, they willingly submit in obedience . . "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) The pope . . the cardinals . . the bishops neither command or inspire trust. Quite simply, they cannot be trusted. The Bible alone inspires implicit TRUST because it is God's Word and He cannot lie! ( Heb. 6:18) THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS GOVERNED BY AND SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT THE POPE!

• JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:04 AM EDT

  The whole notion of papal succession, papal authority and papal infallibility is papal bull! Their outrageous assertion of power over the true church of Christ is an invention of ROME and is altogether alien to the Word of God, to which Christ's true church is subject. Their claim that Peter was the first pope is wholly unsupported by Scripture.If Peter was the first pope as Rome alleges, why is there no mention of it in the New Testament? Surely, on such an important matter with respect to the church, the Apostles would not have remained silent! If Peter was the first pope as Rome alleges, why was there no deference shown to him? Surely the other apostles would have accorded him some special / preferential treatment befitting his high office, yet we read of no such thing in the writings of the New Testament. Rather, we read of an instance where Paul rebukes Peter. (Galatians 2:11) If Peter was the first pope as Rome alleges, why did he reprove those who sought to revere him, as in the case of the centurion Cornelius as recorded in Acts 10:25-26:“And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself am a man.” The humble spirit Peter exhibited who rejected such a gesture does not comport with the spirit of Rome's popes.

• JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:03 AM EDT

  “Tell a lie long enough and people will believe it.” Such is the case with Rome's claim of absolute papal rule! The doctrine of the infallibility of the pope is a relatively "new" doctrine. It was carefully defined by the Vatican Council which met in Rome in 1870. Here is their definition: "...we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defending doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."What the not so holy Roman Catholic “church” knows about faith and morals I could put on a post it note. Why would anyone take their cues regarding faith and morals from these rogues and miscreants?

• Collette2 | Jul 31, 2011, 02:34 AM EDT

  Gearoid, youv'e forgotten Simon Magus, sometimes one has to wonder if we haven't got the two Simon's mixed up with such attrocities committed in our name and in the name of God.

• Collette2 | Jul 31, 2011, 02:18 AM EDT

  Captain... as Catholics, it's a terrible burden, and to even harkin the church to SS officers is a blight but pertinent. Imagine what they've got away with for centuries, it beggars belief, we just have to hang there making spiritual communions.

• Gearoid4 | Jul 30, 2011, 10:24 PM EDT

  @eiriamach, It is a complement that you mistake me for Carroll09, as he is a very eloquent defender of Catholic Christian orthodoxy. He rightly points out that a lot of advocates of the 'Spirit of Vatican 11' school of reform are looking for changes that were never mandated by the Fathers of the Council. Well, JuneAnnette, you continue to spout biblical quotes in a distorted fashion to push your anti-Catholic agenda. Well Jesus did find a single Church and gave the Keys of authority to Peter, Her first earthly leader(Matthew 16:18). One can trace the venerable office of the papacy back to that momentous decision. Down through history there have been popes whose life-styles have given scandal and presently we see that in the revelations concerning priests and bishops. But the reality of the human propensity to sin has been with us in the Church from the first generation of the apostles e.g Peter who denied Our Lord 3 times and St Paul who was a former persecutor of Christians. But Jesus will never abandon His Church and the Holy Spirit will guide Her through Her darkest moments until the end of time.

• JuneAnnette | Jul 30, 2011, 01:12 PM EDT

  The recent revelations of the Cloyne Report once again affords compelling evidence that it is business as usual in the RCC. The so-called "princes of the church" continue to lie with impunity and instead of telling the TRUTH they have routinely employed the clever tactic of "mental reservation", as they capriciously deem necessary and in order to avoid at all costs . . SCANDAL to both themselves and to “their precious church” . . not to be confused with Christ's church! The spirit of the bishops is more agreeable to the father of lies, who would be proud of their intellectual and ingenious prowess in conceiving such a diabolical scheme to avoid telling the truth. But from Christ . . “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) . . they would only receive his unqualified censure! “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do, he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44) The NOT SO HOLY Roman Catholic "church" is not Christ's church, of whom HE ALONE is the HEAD!

• CaptainCon | Jul 30, 2011, 07:23 AM EDT

  I'm sure many SS officers stopped to pat a stray dog on the street or gave sweets to a child- does taht count against their membership in such an organisation? Every priest in Ireland has taken an oath to follow instructions, spiritual or temporal, to a foreign absolute monarch, with unquestioning obedience. Every one of them. You want me to look past that? No.

• Collette2 | Jul 30, 2011, 05:32 AM EDT

  I agree Niall, there are, but if I were them, I'd be taking a sabbatical to prevent contagion, spiritual or otherwise.

• Carroll09 | Jul 29, 2011, 05:35 PM EDT

  Eiriamach - I am all for the reforms of Vatican II being implemented in their fullness, as long as they are implemented and interpreted in the manner in which the Council Fathers envisaged. However, it is clear that a "reform of the reform" is needed in a few areas - most notably, perhaps, in the area of the Sacred Liturgy, where many changes made (the laity were told) in "the Spirit of Vatican II" were never actually mandated by the council, nor by any document since the council...but I guess that's a discussion for another day.

• eiriamach | Jul 29, 2011, 03:40 PM EDT

  Yes, Carroll09, I was conversing recently with Gearoid04 on O'Dowd's article "Bishop Magee did Vatican bidding." I apologize for confusing you with the other, though I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again because in some ways you and Gearoid04 are nearly indistinguishable from each other. I agree that the intentions of the great reform council Vatican II have not been realized, but I don't know which ones you think were "hijacked." A Time magazine article written on the eve of the Council's opening in 1962 predicted, fairly accurately, the following items as likely topics of discussion and decision: Episcopal infallibility, structure of dioceses, priests & religious, liturgy, the Church & non-Catholics, marriage, religious liberty, the laity, married deaconate, decentralization, and dogma. They say that it takes about a century to carry out the reforms of a church council, and it has been almost half a century now, but half a century of resistance to reform, "reform of the reform," rather than accomplishment. Now that reform is being forced on the church by the Taoiseach as well as groups of priests and laity in Ireland, the US, Australia, and Austria, perhaps we'll see the pace of change speed up a little.

• mhichil | Jul 28, 2011, 11:42 AM EDT

  the really good priests and bishops left the roman church long ago, the rest are here to learn lifes' lessons as they teach the rest not to trust them. They do serve gods plan!

• Bernadett | Jul 28, 2011, 10:03 AM EDT

  WELL SAID LilPaddy.i have sent registered mail to him also and got no response.I think , that they think, if they leave things long enough we will all be in heaven and they wont have to deal with us anymore. At least we wont have to deal with them there because they will all be in hell for their sins.

• LilPaddy | Jul 27, 2011, 11:42 PM EDT

  Boy Oh Boy! Having read this ass kissing account by i.c's N.O'D***, and then reading the majority of the comments below, it is obvious that Mr. O'D*** needs to take his head out of his ar**... What a three dollar bill.... Firstly, if Bishop Martin was as "up front" as Mr. O'D*** would have you believe? Why then would Bishop Martin not respond to information I provided (via registered mail) that included a dvd made by myself, that gave proof that The Oblates of Mary Immumaculate (Inchicore, Dublin) and thus The Vatican, knew about molestings in an Irish Instituition since at least as far back as the mid 1950's... WITH THIS VERY SAME INFORMATION SENT TO Mr.O'D**d... And my email records show that Mr.O'D responded (2 yr.ago), but would not print a word of it on I.C. The question then should be asked of Mr.O'D. as to WHY NOT? In the event that this gets past the i.c. "screening process"? You should of course call N.O'D... And you can then call me@951 264 7103 and ask for details (and/or) the dvd... The truth should not be filtered by The Vatican OR I.Ce***a*.... AND TO YOU commenter McNamara31 below Re: lines 4&5 of your comment, you have no idea of just how right on you are....

• Carroll09 | Jul 27, 2011, 08:26 PM EDT

  Gearoid must be really on your mind for some reason - I expect that your previous post was directed at me, Eiriamach. I have never indicated disdain for the "social work" aspect of priesthood- what I am saying is that the priest, first and foremost, has at the core of the vocation to priestly ministry the task of caring for and saving souls. That takes many forms, but primaraly, as the Church teaches, through the sacraments, which are "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us". I have never suggested that priests should be distant from the material needs of the people; I have said that their role goes far deeper than this - a role that, for a Catholic, cannot be filled by a social-worker, doctor, psychologist or politician. This is not triumphalism or clericalism- but rather a priest recognising his place and role in the Church, just as the laity have their role in the Church- these are certainly things which Vatican II discussed, however the real vision of the council has never been realised (rather, it has been hijacked), because if it had been, we actually would not be witnessing this confusing and unhealthy blurring of the lines between clergy and laity, the sacramental priesthood and the priesthood of the people, which Vatican II itself defined very clearly.

• Bernadett | Jul 27, 2011, 06:39 PM EDT

  Is that it 3. I Will say this ,Archbishop Martin is a great man with words , lets see some action ,then the Church in Ireland may have some chance of a future. Start by looking after the victims.

• eiriamach | Jul 27, 2011, 04:48 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, your disdain for the "social work" aspects of priestly vocation, in which priests work in a pastoral way with people with both spiritual and material needs, does suggest clericalism. And your insistence that Roman Catholicism alone is true Christianity because it distances itself from the problems of this world does suggest triumphalism and rejection of ecumenical efforts to unite Christians. The "authentic role" of priests is not to be aloof from the deep needs of church for reform at every level and at all times. The faithful, heeding the words of people like Enda Kenny, will take up the work of reform and restore the ancient roles of priests in their liturgical and pastoral functions. But they will also recognize the roles of others as teachers, ministers of various kinds, sharers in the work and spirit of the gospels, and creators of community. In other words, the reforms envisioned by Vatican II are on their way.

• themurphia | Jul 27, 2011, 03:18 PM EDT

  When de Bert told de peeple to commit suicide was he commiting a Sin...according to the laws of the Catlick Church? If he told peeple to have an abortion or commit euthanasia...Supposin' a junkie loser took de Bert's advice and the junkie loser's motherFFer continued to be one of FF's staunchest supporters would that be considered 'normal' in the minds of right thinking people..? Like the man said 'they FF*ck you up your mum and dad'..assuming there is a dad like...!

• mcbreen | Jul 27, 2011, 09:59 AM EDT

  The same people who (in days of yore) expected the Church to solve all of their problems, now blame the Church for all of their problems. The cycle of dependency goes on unabated.

• themurphia | Jul 27, 2011, 09:27 AM EDT

  Can some of the Holy Terrorists explain this to me...does the Catlick Church consider Suicide i.e. self murder in the same way as they consider abortion/euthanasia murder...surely they must... it's taking sacred life after all...And is someone drove someone else to suicide would they consider that aiding and abeting self/murder...?Just askin' like..

• Carroll09 | Jul 27, 2011, 05:14 AM EDT

  eiriamach - "clericalism" and "Catholic triumphalism" is not the same as recognising and stating the authentic role of a priest. Priests do not equal clericalism! I was merely pointing out the fact that the role of a priest is much more than that of a mere do-gooder. Yes, doing good is essential if one wishes to follow Christ - every Christian, not just priests, are called to do good. However, a priest is ordained to teach the faith through teaching, but especially to bring Christ to others through the sacraments. It is no less than Our Lord commanded when he said "Do this in memory of Me" and "those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain are retained". This has been the model of a priest in the Church for 2000 years - for a priest to abandon these commands in favour of being merely a "social-worker in a collar" is, essentialy, to reject the very essence of the priesthood itself. That is not triumphalism, nor is it clericalism - it is being Christ to others in precisely the way Christ Himself calls us to do so.

• eiriamach | Jul 26, 2011, 09:19 PM EDT

  pilib04, Fr. Des Wilson currently has an article on the Assn. of Catholic Priests in Ireland web site. It's about the new disclosure law, and it seems to me that the scenarios he imagines are wildly over-stated.

• eiriamach | Jul 26, 2011, 09:11 PM EDT

  Carroll09, "social workers in collars" is not a bad idea at all for priests! It's a far more Christlike role than your clericalism and your Catholic triumphalism. I'm not yet convinced about AB Martin. I'm waiting for him to embrace reform. An interviewer with the 'Vatican Insider' asked him, "What impact has the Cloyne report had on Catholics and public opinion in Ireland?" AB Martin replied, "It raised a lot of anger and confusion at the fact that a diocese had declared its adherence to the rules of the Church when in actual fact it was not abiding by them at all.” Really? Was the reason for anger over the Cloyne Report that Bishop Magee was NOT following the Vatican's wishes in dealing with clerical child abuse, or that he WAS carrying out Rome's wishes? When asked whether Vatican officials were fully aware of the Cloyne Report, the AB answered, "Rome has proposed a course of action which I fully support and is the only course to follow. In this sense, Rome supports and encourages the course that I and the Irish episcopate are following." Is AB Martin saying that the Irish bishops and the Vatican are in full accord about how to deal with child abuse by clergy? Was that true in 1997? Was it true during the time frame covered by the Cloyne Report? The Archbishop is walking a very narrow line and might tumble over onto one side or the other, and the Rome side, I fear, is the likelier tumble.

• pilib04 | Jul 26, 2011, 08:58 PM EDT

  Interesting that Niall left out Father Desmond Wilson, oft referred to as the Desmond Tutu of Ireland. Father Wilson has dedicated his life, at great personal risk, to the cause of justice in Northern Ireland.

• barneyjo | Jul 26, 2011, 04:21 PM EDT

  @Carroll09 - "Where two or three are gathered in my name"........AND?????

• CaptainCon | Jul 26, 2011, 04:18 PM EDT

  The average age of priests in Ireland is 68. All of them knew about the abuse scandals being hushed up and none of them spoke out. That is all I have to say.

• BelfastinDC | Jul 26, 2011, 12:36 PM EDT

  It's time to ask Rome to leave and for Ireland to form a truly Irish Catholic Church. The French did it long ago, the Italians just ignore the Vatican, and someday I would hope the American Church would wake up. "Absolute Monarchs" by John Julius Norwich should be on every thinking Catholics night stand. The Council of Whitby which marginalized Celtic Christianity was one of Rome's greatest sins.

• McNamara31 | Jul 26, 2011, 11:42 AM EDT

  The Vatican has failed to realize there any many victims of their actions. First and foremost were the actual innocent victims, then there were the faithful who were literally blow away with these disclosures, then there were the good and faithful clergy who had to do a job made significantly harder by this leadership or lack of it. And last there was the legacy as I have said many times before, of those emigrants who left Ireland and built churches and schools around the world. In yesterday’s NYT a column stated that the Catholic Church is presently in the greatest downsizing in history closing schools and churches with no thought of need rather with an eye on the resale price of the property. In the mist of this epic tragedy are the good and loyal followers of Christ’s message each day trying to make the world one bit better and we must not forget them as this travesty continues to reveal itself. I hope they realize as the world applauds Enda Kenny for being a clear voice who spoke truth to the Vatican he was also speaking in their behalf and as we respect Enda Kenny’s actions so do we respect and admire their actions as they do Gods work in these most difficult times.

• CitizenWhy | Jul 26, 2011, 10:32 AM EDT

  The Celtic church was a mixed thing. At the time of the Reformation monasteries controlled by the Celtic Irish (within the Roman Catholic Church) were family-owned and corrupt. The monasteries run by the Old English (long resident Catholic families of English and Irish heritage but English in culture) were efficiently and virtuously run. Of course Henry suppressed all the monasteries, good and bad. Even Anne Bolyn, a goo two-sacrament Protestant,, was shocked when he suppressed the good monasteries.

• KathyCallahan | Jul 26, 2011, 09:55 AM EDT

  It's time to drive the snakes out of Ireland, again. Big time. In the spirit of St Patrick. And on a more regular basis.

• themurphia | Jul 26, 2011, 09:55 AM EDT

  Have just read that NI Parole Board Commissioners have refused compassionate release for B.Lillis...?

• Carroll09 | Jul 26, 2011, 09:42 AM EDT

  "A truly pastoral church is what is needed in Ireland today, one responsive to the wishes of the people" - granted, the first part is true (if one has a proper understanding of "pastoral"), but this experiment was tried 400 years ago: it's called the Protestant "Reformation". Pandering to the wishes of the people, fleeting worldly trends and political correctness is the reason why we have 30,000 Christian denominations, each claiming to be right, though they cannot all possibly be. What followers of Christ need is the teaching of Christ - such teachings are not nullified by the majority vote of the people. Secondly, this article confuses the authentic role of the Catholic priest, which is to be Christ to others - "alter Christus" - with those who issue soundbytes and sweeping statements. The latter is most certainly not the mark of a good priest or bishop. We can all agree that abuse and cover up is wrong - we do not have to be Diarmuid Martin, Willie Walsh or Iggy O'Donovan to do so - however, when such persons proceed to descend into rants against the teachings of the Church, one can legitimately ask why they consider themselves Catholic at all. The Church in Ireland will recover only when we have priests who rediscover their true role as "alter Christus", when they become dispensers of authentic Catholic teaching, faith and tradition - otherwise, they are merely social workers in collars. For an interesting insight into Catholicism in Ireland today - and how it can recover - I recommend Prof. Mark Dooley's recently published book "Why be a Catholic?".

• barneyjo | Jul 26, 2011, 06:27 AM EDT

  @Niall - you're absolutely right about that. The problem of course is that the many good men that are there have been conditioned to accept the de facto status quo of (blind)obedience and loyalty as the over-arching and all embracing template for their lives in ministry. What makes it even more sad is that so many feel that now in their 50s 60s and 70s, it is to late for them to change, even if they could. Mother church has done a good job on those men!!