THE ATTACK OF MONSIGNOR O'CALLAGHAN (MALLOW, CO. CORK)
UPON THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ULSTER
REVIEWED, REFUTED AND REPUDIATED
Under the weekly title of "Plain
Speaking" Monsignor Denis O'Callaghan, based in Mallow, Co. Cork,
addresses the readers of the "Corkman" Newspaper. I believe in a free
press and so I have no objections to this arrangement. In the March
29th 2001 edition, the Monsignor turns his attentions to the Free
Presbyterian Church. A friend notified me about this article and I
consequently made a reply. (Click here for letter sent to the editor)
In the letter sent to the editor, I refrained from answering the
Monsignor point by point. UPON THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ULSTER
REVIEWED, REFUTED AND REPUDIATED
 Monsignor O'Callaghan
|
 Colin Maxwell in Patrick Street Cork
|
 Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley
|
Here is the letter I sent to the editor of the "Corkman" Newspaper:
| From: Colin Maxwell, 10 Briarscourt, Shanakiel, Cork. To: The Editor, Corkman Newspaper. Date: 2nd April, 2001 Dear Sir, I read with vested interest the "Plain Speaking" of Monsignor Denis O'Callaghan regarding the stand of the Free Presbyterian Church. (29th March, 2001) His censures were certainly vintage stuff i.e. been around for a long time. The press have been hammering away at the Free Presbyterian Church since its humble beginnings 50 years ago and I suppose the silence would be deafening if it were all to cease. My interest in writing, however, is not to go line by line through the Monsignor's list of grievances. We can deal with general principles and let the outworking of those principles filter down to the details. The Monsignor uses the word "sectarian" in regards to Free Presbyterianism. Why is it deemed so? Is it because Free Presbyterianism believes that the Protestant faith best represents the teaching of the word of God and that the teaching of the Pope is in serious error? If so, the label "sectarian" must be applied to every single Protestant clergy man in the island of Ireland. Free Presbyterian ministers subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith which has some unsavoury things to say about the mass and various other fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines. But then, so do the ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland. The 39 Articles of the Anglican Church aren't far behind either in this regard and every Church of Ireland minister publicly assents to them also. Even the ecumenical ones who attend RC masses. Is it sectarian to publicly expose the perceived errors of another church? If so, then the Monsignor shows every symptom of it in his article against various Protestant denominations. Is it sectarian to mock another religion? Doubtless the Monsignor's parody of a Highland Kirk service qualifies him here also. The Monsignor believes all Free Presbyterians who convert from Rome (including two ministers) are damned souls because they have embraced the distinctive doctrines of the Protestant faith. If he doesn't, then he is repudiating his own Council of Trent which was heartily endorsed by Vatican II. Is this sectarianism? Or has the Monsignor a special pass that lets him indict others for doing what he excels in himself? One thing I did like about the Monsignor's article though is this. He states the Genevan belief that "One escaped the fire of hell by being saved through calling on the name of the Lord and being washed in the blood of the Lamb." This is the central message of the New Testament. Yours faithfully, Colin Maxwell, (Cork Free Presbyterian Church) cfpc@esatclear.ie |
I dealt in this letter with general principles. It is my intention to answer Monsignor O'Callaghan point by point in this article here. The original article is in black. My comments are in red.
SOME SAY IAN PAISLEY'S CHURCH IS THE DUP AT PRAYER
This is the heading of the article. Later on the Monsignor sees fit to attack the Democratic Unionist Party. At that stage, my interest in his article dies a death. My interest is in defending the Free Presbyterian Church from his attacks and I will do so with unflinching rigour. Suffice to say, however, that the observation in the headline above is not generally used now. The DUP (I am not nor ever have been a member) has become increasingly secularised and the distance between the FPC and DUP has widened. There is no official link and never has been any between the two. The Monsignor himself does not say that the FPC is the DUP at prayer. Twice in the article, including this heading, he merely indicates that others have said so. This being so, we will contain ourselves to what the Monsignor actually says for himself.
St Patrick's day 1951 was the birthday of the Free Presbyterian Church. On that day in the village of Crossgar in Co. Down Ian Paisley, then in his twenties, preached a sermon in which he announced his break with mainstream Presbyterianism.
It ought to be pointed out that Mr Paisley was never a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. (PCI) His background was actually Baptist, although he studied for the ministry as an independent student in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland. His church in Ravenhill, Belfast had seceded from the PCI some years earlier and was effectively an independent church when it called him to be its pastor. The PCI were/are quick to deny that he was ever a member or a minister. Mr Paisley writing soon after the events in Crossgar also denied that he was ever associated with the PCI. A small point but it helps to keep the record straight.
St Patrick's Day is special for him. He says that he will reclaim it from the nationalists who have hijacked Patrick, a good Brit.
The Paisley sense of humour, appreciated by all and sundry, coming to the fore. I remember once when the Northern Ireland Question time in the House of Commons fell on March 17th and all the politicians present, Unionist and Nationalist alike bantered each other over the significance of Patrick.
It would have taken a prophetic eye to see a future for the new sect.
A sect? The Monsignor writes here as a true servant of Rome. When pushed, he can only admit that there is but one Christian Church and that is his own. The FPC believes it is a part of the one Church of Jesus Christ, but does not arrogate to itself sole right to the title. However, I note that the New Testament Christians were twice considered to be a sect. Once by their sworn enemies (Acts 24:5) and once by neutral observers (Acts 28:22) so we stand on Apostolic ground.
Any one who presented himself in religious terms as more fundamentalist than mainstream Ulster Presbyterianism would have been written off as being so far to the right that he would soon be out of sight.
If by "mainstream Ulster Presbyterianism" the Monsignor is referring to the PCI, then he greatly demeans the term "fundamentalist" The PCI in 1951 was a church which had vindicated, in a heresy trial some 25 years earlier, a modernist professor in its college. He would soon be elevated to its Moderator's chair. It had but 3 years earlier joined the apostate World Council of Churches whose professed aim was "to reverse the trend of the Reformation" i.e. return to Rome. Many of its ministers were modernist in doctrine. (Click here for more details) Although Ian Paisley's background was Baptist (His father was a Baptist Pastor) yet he was very much in sympathy with the Presbyterian ethos. His own church in Ravenhill (as observed earlier) had seceded from the local PCI congregation. The desire in Crossgar - among the local Presbyterians - and Ian Paisley - was to return to standard Presbyterianism.
However this assessment did not take into account the extraordinary talents of Reverend Ian Paisley to move masses of susceptible people by his power as a preacher.
But the people of Ulster are not stupid. Or susceptible as the Monsignor diplomatically puts it. At least, no more susceptible than anywhere else. Certainly among the people of God, there was a strong affiliation to the Bible. Ulster was full of preachers, sound, heretical or otherwise. Like the Bereans of old, they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things he said were so (Acts 17:11) Many of them liked what they heard because what they heard was in accordance with the word of God. Had Ian Paisley preached otherwise, doubtless he would have got some kind of a following, but not among those sheep of Christ of whom the Saviour said: "And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." (John 10:5)
Fire and brimstone was the stock in trade of those who ministered in the Presbyterian tradition.
Local RC's here in Cork tell me that their religion in 1950 had its fire and brimstone preachers as well. The Dominican's carried some fame in this respect. Perhaps even the Monsignor in his day has delivered a few sermons along that line. True Presbyterianism ever seeks to follow the Apostolic emphasis of preaching "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) The Monsignor here is portraying a caricature - unfortunately only the first in this article.
One escaped the fire of hell by being saved through calling on the name of the Lord and being washed in the blood the Lamb. Few put the message across better than Ian Paisley.
Amen! My Roman Catholic Bible declares: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13) and identifies those who have so called as those who … "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:14) There is no mention of priests or ministers or sacraments. Just Christ alone.
In that message the fear of God loomed large.
The fear of God looms large in all of Apostolic preaching. However, the emphasis, even in the Monsignor's summary, is on the love of the Lamb of God who shed His blood and the freeness of His grace in making salvation available through simple faith alone.
This reflected the Calvinistic roots of Presbyterianism.
The Monsignor errs here. Whilst Presbyterians can trace their tree back through John Calvin, they are rooted, not in Calvin, but in the Apostles. Calvinism (to borrow the popular designation) was a simply a return to New Testament Christianity. Naturally we would not expect the Monsignor to accept this view…but then neither should he expect us to accept his perception of it either.
In the sixteenth century John Calvin led the Reformation movement in Geneva. A central point of his theology was the doctrine of predestination. One was destined either for hell or heaven. God's providence would see to it that his "elect" were gathered into the fold and put on the way of salvation.
The Monsignor here is correct as far as he goes, although there is much more that needs to be said to give a totally accurate picture. (Click here for a better explanation of what Calvinists believes)
It was an unflinching, dour religion.
Caricature number two. The Romanists laughed and had such fun. The Protestants barely raised a smile. There is no reason for any Bible believing Protestant to be dour. This is pure mischief.
One did not merit heaven by a good life.
A most interesting statement. First of all…it is true. Merit mongering has no place to play in New Testament Christianity. We are saved through the imputed merits of Another even Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30) I wonder, however, is the Monsignor preaching access to heaven by human merit? If so, then he is preaching the rejected religion of Cain (Genesis 4)
By living righteously one merely reassured oneself that one had been numbered among the saved. Good living reflected divine election.
If the Monsignor is saying here that good works are the evidence - though not the sole or contributing factor - of salvation (which flows from divine election) then I agree with his analysis.
Historians have proposed that Swiss industriousness owes a lot to Calvin.
They are right. This is known as the "Protestant work ethic" which is based on the teaching of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
Over the centuries the black and white pattern of Calvin's teaching on predestination has been qualified through a more benign understanding of God's love and mercy for sinners.
The Monsignor does Calvin a grave injustice. His summary of Calvinism above was inadequate and here is the fruit of it coming out now. Calvin preached as "benign" an understanding of God's love and mercy for sinners as much as any man. His sermons and writings are still in print (and CD Rom) and still in big demand. A useful book for understanding what Calvin actually taught (as opposed to what friends and foes thought he taught) is a well indexed and extensive anthology called "Calvin's Wisdom" by Graham Miller and printed by the Banner of Truth Trust. In Ps. IV;283 he taught: "As we cannot distinguish between the elect and the reprobate, it is our duty to pray for all who trouble us, to desire the salvation of all men." We forbear to multiply quotes, of which this is but an example.
Karl Barth, the best known of contemporary Reformed theologians in the Calvinist line, has been hailed as a modern Thomas Aquinas because of his insights into the mystery of salvation through Christ. One doubts that Ian Paisley would have much time for Karl Barth with his ecumenical approach to an understanding of the Christian faith which was praised by Pope Paul VI.
Ian Paisley did not have time for Karl Barth at all. Barth believed that the Bible was not the word of God but only became the word of God in certain situations to certain people. This is plain heresy and I assume that the Monsignor would agree with us on this.
Neither would Ian Paisley have time for the recent accord between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran community on the meaning of justification by trust in Jesus as Saviour.
As students of the Reformation controversy will know, one great difference between the Roman view and the Protestant view is the little word "alone" Protestants believe that men are justified before God by faith alone without the deeds of the law. Rome insists in introducing other things including the necessity of human mediators other than Christ, good works and sacraments. The absence of the all important word "alone" in the Monsignor's statement justifies Ian Paisley's stand if he is to maintain Biblical Protestant consistency.
In his language ecumenism is sell-out.
If you mean ecumenism in the common usage of the word i.e. where so called Protestants want to renew fellowship with Rome, then the Monsignor sums it up aptly. But do not think that the Free Presbyterian's are not ecumenical in the Biblical sense of the word. We enjoy rich fellowship with Christians of all evangelical and fundamental denominations. (Click here to see web page that answers the Roman objection that Protestantism does not enjoy unity for fuller treatment.)
He and his followers mounted a picket against Pope John Paul II on the occasion of his visit to Britain.
Like Paul, we follow him inasmuch as he follows Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1) Yes…peaceful protests were conducted in a number of places in the UK. Norman St John Stevas MP urged the government before the protests to "lock up the protestors and throw away the key" which did much to confirm the persecuting nature of the Roman Church at that time. Although an entirely peaceful protest, several Free Presbyterians were arrested and charged with the all inclusive "breach of the peace."
For him the very concept of Protestantism means that one protests against popery.
The Monsignor here plays the old Roman card that Protestantism is just a reactionary religion, living like a parasite on the Church of Rome. As stated above, however, Bible Protestantism was just a return to New Testament Christianity. Weeks on end pass in some of our congregations without the Pope or the errors of Rome being mentioned. Our emphasise in on expounding the teaching of the word of God. Yes, like the Apostles of old, we do protest against error (a most positive thing to do) but we seek to expose all error whether it flows from Brooklyn NY, Utah, Rome or Hollywood.
For us in the South, Ian Paisley's religion qualifies as sectarian.
I think the Monsignor will find that the word sectarian carries the same meaning on both sides of the border and indeed in every place where English is spoken. Below in the reply I sent to the editor of the newspaper, you will see that I take the Monsignor up in this particular attack. I challenge him to show wherein Free Presbyterianism is sectarian. Do read the full answer. I refuse to let the Monsignor think that he can make such statements without being challenged. I look forward to getting a reply and will keep you fully posted when I do.
It has its counterpart in Scotland among the Free Presbyterian Church known there as the "Wee Frees"
Although we are a different denomination, we are happy to enjoy cordial fellowship with these people.
They cut off from membership Lord Chancellor Mackay. His offence was attendance at a Catholic funeral for a deceased colleague.
The Monsignor understates and therefore trivialises the offence. The offence was that he attended a Roman Catholic mass. As an elder in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, he swore to uphold the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith which, among other things, teaches that the "…Popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect." (WCF 29:2) Other distinctive RC teaching is likewise condemned by the Confession. It was totally inconsistent of Lord Mackay to attend the mass. He could have (as I have done on several occasions) gone to the RC funeral to pay his respects to the deceased and waited patiently outside the service. Lord Mackay refused to confess his error and subsequently his membership of the Scottish FPC was taken away. The consistency lay with the Church - not with Lord Mackay who swore one thing but did another.
The surprise is that the Lord Chancellor, an enlightened man, had originally subscribed to so rigid a group.
Is it rigid to expect men who swear solemnly before God and the congregation to uphold by life and lip the distinct teaching of their church to be consistent with their oath? Let any prominent office holder in the RC Church step out of line and we will see how rigid Rome is.
Recently they have written to Queen Elizabeth blaming on her visit to the Pope last year a list from social disasters from the floods to the epidemic of foot and mouth disease.
If you were to ask me whether or not I would trace these disasters back to the Queen's visit, I would hesitate to give the affirmative. But if you asked me whether it was wrong for the professed Governor of the Church of England with its Protestant creed to visit the Pope in Rome and whether God was angry with this visit, I would not hesitate to answer "Yes"
Agree or not with their convictions one must accept that in preaching the Free Presbyterians are in the first rank for power and colour. Picture a minister in a Highland kirk presenting a lurid nightmare of hell and concluding in ringing tones, 'There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' As he pauses for effect, a woman at the back asks, 'How about those who hain't got teeth?' 'In hell my friends,' he drops his voice, 'teeth will be provided.'
This is sheer mockery of divine service in a Highland Church. It is based on a joke, originally aimed at Ian Paisley, about 15 years ago. As I ask in the challenge sent to the editor of the Corkman newspaper, (below) does such mockery constitute sectarianism on the part of the Monsignor …or is it only when Free Presbyterians engage in it does it become sectarian?
This is the lineage of Ian Paisley. As if that was not enough…
i.e. we are likened unto Scottish Presbyterians who, according to the Monsignor's ridicule and misrepresentation, believe that teeth are provided in hell.
…he spent some time in the so called Bible Belt of the United States…
Funny isn't it? I have never heard the Vatican or Knock ever referred to as the "Bible belt" Which is good. There is enough confusion without it.
…where he was conferred with a doctorate from Bob Jones University.
I am not quite sure what the Monsignor means when he says that Dr Paisley "spent some time" The phrase itself is quite ambiguous. Does it mean that he visited there for a week or a month or that he lived there? I just know that he was conferred with his honorary doctorate while in prison in Belfast in the late 1960's.
If his sermons are taken as evidence it would seem that his studies centred on the God of the Old Testament. There is little of the merciful Father of Jesus Christ.
I doubt if the Monsignor really knows what he is talking about here. He doesn't strike me as the type of man who gets a continual supply of tapes from the Martyrs Memorial. The Monsignor now is ceasing to be objective in his criticism. Like the minister above whom he invented and tried to pass on as genuine, he is presenting a "lurid nightmare" of Ian Paisley thundering out OT fire and brimstone sermons. Let me correct the Monsignor on his deviant theology. First of all the God of the Old Testament is the merciful God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly the God of the Old Testament manifests as much love in the Old Testament as He does in the New. Thirdly, the merciful Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament hates sin with the same vengeance as He did in the Old. As one who has been there and heard Ian Paisley preach on numerous occasions, I can categorically say that he preaches the love of God to all men, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter alike.
One supposes that what strikes most Irish people as extreme is the extent to which Dr Ian Paisley and his followers go in observing the Sabbath. No children's playground opened in Craigavon. No golf in Castlereagh in the Sabbath.
Our position on the Sabbath Day is the traditional Presbyterian one. We believe that works of necessity and mercy can be performed, but those which are not should be suspended. This gives us a welcome break and the opportunity, perhaps hard gotten during the 6 other days, to attend the house of God. One man's extremity is often another man's normality. To play the Monsignor at his own game, we might comment on the extremes which he and his followers go in abstaining from meat on Fridays (OK… Macdonald's on a Friday night in Mallow serves more than fish cakes) but the fact that that it is no more insisted on and its omission is no more demonised proves the point. "Crossing yourself" every time you pass a chapel or grotto or the use of "holy water" might be construed as another extreme and so on. At least the observance of the Sabbath has Scripture backing.
There is a story that on a Sabbath Day a farmer's wife declined to accept money from a camper for a can of milk. On being pressed she said, 'Leave it on the mantelpiece and I'll lift it tomorrow.'
This is the best the Monsignor can up with. "There is a story told…" Perhaps it was a joke told…just like the preacher mentioned above. However one danger of telling jokes is that susceptible people often believe they are true.
Ian Paisley's church membership numbers around 12,000 in Ireland, including an outreach over the border into Donegal, Monaghan and Cork City. One must add congregations in Spain, Germany, the United States , Canada, Australia and in some mission territories.
True.
Free Presbyterianism is still a small sect in terms of numbers. It's influence in the North through its political wing in the Democratic Unionist Party is far greater that its numbers suggest. It has been suggested as the DUP at prayer. It has been described as the DUP at prayer.
The Monsignor errs exceedingly again. The FPC does not have a "political wing" The DUP is an entirely different organisation in an entirely different situation made up of members from various churches and none. As observed above, the DUP has become increasingly secularised over the years. Their position on the Lord's Observance has left the "No children's playground opened in Craigavon and no golf in Castlereagh in the Sabbath" scenario commented on by the Monsignor. Long ago. The Monsignor is really rehashing criticisms from about 15 years ago and passing them on as if they pertained to the 21st Century.
The DUP…
At this stage, we leave the Monsignor to his political opinions. He has left off his criticisms of the Free Presbyterian Church and I am content to turn my attention elsewhere. Hopefully this point by point reply will help straighten records or at least explain why Free Presbyterians think the way we do.
A few years ago Mr Paisley compiled a Q&A type booklet on the Roman Controversy. One question sums up the position of the FPC:
Q. 239 What attitude should we adopt to individual Roman Catholics and ecumenists?
Ans:- We should act as Christ has commanded us, as good neighbours. We should look upon them as souls for whom Christ died and we should love them, pray for them and seek their salvation. We should evangelise them presenting Christ as the only Saviour by lip and life and we should always remember that we debtors to bring them the Saving Truth of Christ.
END OF THE FIRST ARTICLE AND LETTER TO THE NEWSPAPER
*******************************************
The Monsignior made reply in his column to the letter which I sent to the newspaper. Below is the second letter which I sent to the newspaper along with the Monsignor's second article and my refutation of it.
| From: Colin Maxwell, 10 Briarscourt, Shanakiel, Cork. To: Mr Commane, Corkman Newspaper. Date: Monday 23rd April, 2001 Dear Sir, Monsignor Denis O'Callaghan in his Plain Speaking Column (12th April) sets about answering my letter of the 5th April. The letter was to the point. I asked him to substantiate his claim that Free Presbyterianism is sectarian. He quotes an Inter Church document which defines sectarianism as "an attitude, belief, behaviour or structure, in which religion is a significant component, must influence or cause situations of destructive conflict and/or infringe the rights of others" We are left to assume, in the light of his previous charge, that such a definition applies to the FPC. It is noticeable that he fails to give any examples. I repudiate his claims. Whatever motions were carried in the Irish Presbyterian Church General Assembly, they still require their ordinands to assent to a doctrinal standard which rejects the mass as injurious to the one sacrifice of Christ. This holds true for all the main Protestant Churches, even those represented at the above Inter Church working group. The Monsignor's reply concerning the lot of Free Presbyterians who convert from Rome is totally unsatisfactory. He knows and I know that the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism must harmonise with the solemn decrees of the Council of Trent. Those same decrees again and again curse those who refute the doctrine of the Mass (Section 22) and indeed other distinct RC doctrines. Recognising that space is at a premium in any newspaper, I have taken the time to answer the Monsignor point by point in both his articles on our church website: www.corkfpcmonsignor.html Yours faithfully, Colin Maxwell, (Cork Free Presbyterian Church) |
Monsignor O'Callaghan's second article. As before, I will answer Monsignor O'Callaghan point by point in this article here. The original article is in black. My comments are in red.
CELEBRATING OUR COMMON FAITH IN THE RISEN CHRIST AT EASTER
A common faith! The Monsignor engages in a whole different approach from his first article. Then he indulged his sneers against us. We were sectarian and extreme with the emphasise of our preaching being on damnation and the "lurid nightmare of hell" etc., Once challenged, however, the Monsignor resorts to the old ecumenical line of a common faith. But can the leopard change his spots?
From Jonathan Swift, Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, comes the comment that the Irish have sufficient religion to make them hate on another but not enough to bring them to love one another.
Which is why we do not preach mere religion. Religion cannot change the heart. We preach a Person (Christ) not religion.
That was two centuries ago. Thank God, dialogue leading to better understanding between the various Christian communities has been bringing about a change. It is that context of dialogue that I welcome the letter in The Corkman from Colin Maxwell of Cork Free Presbyterian Church. Dialogue should operate in the spirit of the Golden Rule of the Gospel "Treat others as you would like them to treat you." (Matthew 7:12) and, in the words of St Paul, dialogue should be about seeking the truth in love. In this spirit it is essential that we correct any misunderstanding about faith and practice in our various traditions.
First of all, I am not dialoguing with the Monsignor. I am simply responding to a public attack upon my denomination and congregation. In my letter to the Corkman newspaper, I have challenged the Monsignor to substantiate his allegation that Free Presbyterianism is sectarian. This is not dialogue.
Colin Maxwell writes: " The Monsignor believes all Free Presbyterians who convert from Rome (including two ministers) are damned souls because they have embraced the distinctive doctrines of the Protestant faith."
The Monsignor truncates the point being made. My next sentence ran: "If he doesn't, then he is repudiating his own Council of Trent which was heartily endorsed by Vatican II." What do you make of (to take a good example) the following? "If anyone says that by the sacrifice of the mass a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or that the former derogates from the latter, let him be anathema." (Trent: Canon 4 Session 22)
Nowhere in my column did I say that. Neither could I have implied it. To have done so would have contradicted the explicit teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Speaking of other Christian Churches and communities the Council declares that "in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also He gives His gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them in his sanctifying power." (Constitution on the Church par 15)
Unless Vatican II and the Catechism contradict the teaching of Trent rather than harmonise with it, then my observation still stands true. Those Roman Catholics who left Rome to become Free Presbyterians are viewed as apostates and the anathema's of the church still hold upon them. The present Pope has specifically refused to lift these anathema's which shows that they still stand.
Colin Maxwell writes " Free Presbyterian ministers subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith which has some unsavoury things to say about the Mass and various other fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines." The Westminster Confession of Faith dating from 1646 has indeed some unsavoury things to say about the Mass as doing "detestable injustice to Christ's own sacrifice", and about the Pope of Rome as "that Antichrist, the man of sin and son of damnation, who glorifies himself as opposed to Christ and everything else related to God" In 1966 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland passed a resolution urging its members "humbly and frankly to acknowledge and ask forgiveness for any attitudes and actions towards our fellow Roman Catholic fellow countrymen which have been unworthy of our calling as followers of Jesus Christ."
Fair enough. It is noteworthy that they still require their ordinands to assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith. We can only conclude that they consider the view that the Mass does "detestable injustice to Christ's own sacrifice" (along with other comments on Roman doctrine) as being in accord with being a follower of Jesus Christ.
In 1988 the General Assembly clarified its description of the Pope as Antichrist as "something not manifestly evident from Scripture." I do not know where Colin Maxwell stands in regard to this change of attitude.
The WCF actually brands the Pope as "that Antichrist in the Church" and this has lead to some disagreement among Protestants as to its exact meaning. If the Generally Assembly mean that it is not clear that a man who takes the title of deity and preaches doctrines which attack the work of Christ upon the Cross is an antichrist, then the General Assembly will experience difficulty finding anything to be "manifestly evident from scripture" I repudiate the General Assembly's attitude in this manner.
In 1993 an Irish Inter Church working group issued a discussion document on sectarianism. The Free Presbyterian Church was not represented on the group.
We probably weren't asked. ( I don't know) If not, it saved us declining the invitation.
The report summarised that Church's position: "Its dominant view of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Pope is the Antichrist and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Beast spoken of in the Book of Revelation. Such a view means that it finds it impossible to accept the Roman Catholic Church as in any way Christian and Rev Dr Ian Paisley often makes the remark - "No peace with Rome until Rome makes peace with God."
This is a bit rich. I wonder did the Presbyterians present acknowledge that their own church believed the same? There are still ministers in the IPC who hold to the same doctrines of the FPC. If we are in serious error and need straightened out …then you would think that they would have the obligation to sort out their own church first. Furthermore, the Methodists whose ministers on ordination swear to uphold the teaching of John Wesley must grapple with the fact that on his comments on 2 Thessalonians 2:3 where reference is made to the man of sin and son of perdition. Wesley wrote: "However in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin…" I wonder did our Anglican friends present make comment on the fact that their Book of Homilies, endorsed by the 39 Articles which their ordinands must assent to, likewise brand Rome as the harlot of Revelation 17? The remark oft quoted by Dr Paisley was actually quoted first by John C. Ryle, the first Anglican Bishop of Liverpool. As I say…a bit rich.
Perhaps that view has been modified.
Not at the Easter Convention just past anyway.
Setting out as fairly and honestly as we can how we see one another is not sectarian. It provides an opportunity to sort out any misunderstandings, to learn from one another and modify positions. Colin Maxwell asks " Is it sectarian to publicly expose the perceived errors of another church?" Of course not. This is honest dialogue.
My original question was seeking to find an answer to the Monsignor's assertion that the FPC is sectarian. The point is that if it is wrong for Mr Paisley and others to publicly expose the perceived errors of Rome, then it is wrong for the Monsignor or others to publicly expose the perceived errors of Free Presbyterianism. The Monsignor, however, answers the question in the negative. So we can rule out the thought that the Free Presbyterians are not sectarian because of their public exposure of the mass etc., We are back to the thought then… why does the Monsignor consider us to be a sectarian church?
The Inter Church discussion document states that " to be judged sectarian an attitude, belief, behaviour or structure, in which religion is a significant component, must influence or cause situations of destructive conflict and/or infringe the rights of others."
Is this the reason why the Monsignor believes we are sectarian? If so…where is the evidence that Free Presbyterianism has caused in any of the above ways situations of destructive conflict and/or infringed on the rights of others? What has the Free Presbyterian Church engaged in that, by the same rule, could not be applied to other churches including that of Rome? The same Council of Trent - which the Monsignor avoided in his reply - acknowledges the baptism of heretics if given in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But it goes further and I quote:
"If any one shall say that the baptised are free from all the precepts of the holy church, whether written or delivered by tradition, so that they are not bound to observe them unless of their own will they desire to submit themselves thereto - let him be anathema." (Canon 8 Session 7) Again:
"If any one shall say , that when those baptised children shall have grown up, they are to be interrogated, whether they desire to ratify that which their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptised; and in case they answer in the negative, are be left to their own will, and not to be compelled in the meantime to Christian life by any penalty other than exclusion from the reception of the Eucharist and other sacraments, until they repent, let him be anathema." (Canon 8 Session 14)
Is this an infringement on the rights of others? Is this sectarian? I say that it is.
Thank God, today in Ireland sectarianism is being exposed for the damage it has done as a virus poisoning community relationships between Christians. In the words of president Eisenhower: "ordinary people want peace so much that one day we shall have to get out of the way and give it to them." In that glorious phrase of Seamus Heaney, hope and history should rhyme.
I hate sectarianism. This is why I take up the issue with the Monsignor when he brands my church as sectarian. It is a slur that cannot be allowed be stand. I repeat the statement which appears elsewhere, written by our Moderator with the general approval of Presbytery, concerning our position about Roman Catholics: In a Q&A type booklet on the Roman Controversy, Mr Paisley poses and answers the question:
Q. 239 What attitude should we adopt to individual Roman Catholics and ecumenists?
Ans:- We should act as Christ has commanded us, as good neighbours. We should look upon them as souls for whom Christ died and we should love them, pray for them and seek their salvation. We should evangelise them presenting Christ as the only Saviour by lip and life and we should always remember that we debtors to bring them the Saving Truth of Christ.
Are these the words of a sectarian preacher?
During Holy Week Christians measure hearts and minds against the shadow of the Cross of Calvary. I look forward to meeting Colin Maxwell, now that our dialogue has begun.
Colin Maxwell preaches the gospel in meetings in 10 Briarscourt, Shanakiel, Cork every Lord's Day at 11:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. All (including Mr O'Callaghan ) are invited to come and sit in the pew and listen to God's word.
As we celebrate our common faith in the Risen Christ an Easter card will convey the invitation.
I am unsure as to whether this means that the Monsignor was intending to send me an Easter Card. If so, it has not arrived. It has been pointed out to me that it could mean that the Monsignor is awaiting a card from me. The phrase is a little ambiguous. Perhaps in the setting of a gospel preacher meeting an attendee at a gospel service, I might have the pleasure of meeting Mr O'Callaghan. This being so. I would be quite happy to answer any misconceptions he, in his personal capacity, might have about the Free Presbyterian Church and its doctrine or practice.