Sir, - Two of your priestly readers (Enda MacCormack, July 9th, and David O'Hanlon, July 16th) have convinced themselves that their church alone is the church which Jesus Christ founded. To disagree is to be, according to Enda MacCormack, "anti Catholic". Perhaps "anti-Catholicism" would be a better term to demonise any who dare to resist his interpretation of scripture and church history.
Not every one in the early church believed that Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built. The Apostles disagreed among themselves about who was the greatest (Mark 9:34) - a non-starter if it were understood that Peter carried this distinction. The Apostle Paul claimed on two occasions that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5/12:11) and mentions Peter along with John and James as being but "pillars" in the Church. Both your correspondents work on the mighty big assumption that the Roman Church of today is one and the same church as the Roman Church of the days of the Apostles. This requires an incredible leap of faith. There was no Mass, with its teaching of transubstantiation, in those early days. There was no auricular confession or elevated priesthood. There were no images or special veneration of Mary. These all came later and coincided with a departure from the Bible as so-called tradition demanded equal status.
Yes, Jesus Christ did say that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church and that it would be assured of His presence to the end of the age. But Paul rules out the thought that the Roman Church could never fall. In Roman 11:20-21, he warns: "Be not highminded, but fear, for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." When one views the subsequent history of the Church of Rome, we can only conclude that this warning was ignored. - Yours, etc.,
Colin Maxwell, Shanakiel, Cork.