Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
FREE PRESBYTERIAN ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM
ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE
U.C.C. PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
PUBLIC DEBATE
Monday 6th March, 2006
"This House believes the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ."
Motion Proposed by: Colin Maxwell (Free Presbyterian Church - Shanakiel, Cork)
Motion Opposed by: Father Adam Portugal (Society of St Pius X - Shanakiel, Cork) Colin Maxwell proposing the motion |
 Adam Portugal opposing the motion |
 Part of the 100 strong crowd |
REPORT ON THE ABOVE DEBATE
Although
arranged at relatively short notice, I agreed to participate in the
above debate. I was very happy (in that limited sense) of being the
proposer of the motion. Initially the plan was that there would be two
speakers on each side, but the organisers had difficulty securing other
speakers. I think in the current ecumenical climate, there is little
stomach for such debate among the mainline churches including Rome herself. "Father Hilliard" the
Anglican chaplain turned up and spoke during the time for questions
from the floor, but he declared himself to be neutral on the matter.
I met my opponent with some of the organising committee around a
cup of tea before hand. He was a young man, originally from the USA and
very pleasant and friendly. I discovered that some of the organising
committee in the Philosophical Society are actually members of his
church. I should point out here for any reader unfamiliar with the "Society of St Pius X"
that they are very much on the right wing of the RC Church. They reject
the teachings of Vatican II, still use the Latin Vulgate, and
have all their masses in Latin. Father Portugal was dressed
immaculately in the kind of garb you see Italian priests in old
photographs from the 1950's wearing, right down to his large satchel
which he wore over his coat. They were started by the late Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre who defied the Pope and began ordaining his own Bishops. He
was excommunicated although his followers claim that this was void on a
technicality and point out that Rome, even although aware of this, has
never persued the matter further. The organisers were going to ask
a Jehovah Witness to second the motion, but they were slow in taking up
the offer. I think this was slightly loaded and I'm glad that it didn't
work out. I would have had to publicly put ground between myself and my
seconder. I was happy the way it was - one speaker on each side.
About
100 people turned up for the debate. Although there was no sign of
advertising posters around the campus, yet apparently every UCC student
was emailed with the information. There were quite a few members of the
general public present, including those from the congregations and
others of the two speakers.
I spoke first for just over 8 minutes, from a prepared statement (see below) and then the priest said his bit also. He referred to the Scriptural and then the Historical reasons why he believed that the Catholic Church was indeed the Church of Christ. To be fair to us both, neither of us had a lot of time to cover so great a topic. I had to apologise that I was just scraping the surface, while he flashed diagrams and lists about and apologised for being unable to go deeper.
Responses from the floor were of mixed value. Unfortunately I was landed with those atheists etc., one in particular who was ribald and blasphemeous, who just took the opportunity to get a good dig at the abandoned Church of their youth. They agreed with my motion, but they didn't agree with me. I "interrupted" one young man when he talked about "errors in the Bible" I asked to name one, but he "hadn't brought his Bible" with him! I asked him then to retract his allegation until he could prove it, but he ignored the request and hurried on. Most of the RC speakers from the floor were dignified and articulate. They were not all older folk either, hankering after the old ways, but young people who take their religion very serious. You could not but admire their sincerity and zeal, although sadly, it is not according to knowledge and saving knowledge at that.
After questions from the floor, we both had 5 minutes to sum up our position where we were expected to answer any criticisms. I found Father Portugal's closing speech to be a little obscure. He never really attacked us, but kept it largely abstract. I "spoke on the hoof" in my closing remarks, and sought to answer some of the objections. I answered their historical argument i.e. Popes can trace their lineage the whole back to Peter. A howl of protest went up when I said that at one and the same time (1412) there were 3 Popes, one of whom was known as Pope John XXIII. Since there was also a Pope John XXIII some 40 years ago, I said that we could call one of them "Pope John XXIII, the First" and the other one "Pope John XXIII the Second." I took advantage of the fact that I was debating those of the Pius X Society and quoted one of their websites, where the late Pope John Paul II was accused of a new humanistic religion and a novel doctrine of universal salvation. I quote:
"Moreover, with the prolongation of his reign and the prolificacy of his writings and discourses, however, it has become ever more clear that Pope John Paul II is preaching a new religion, a humanism, a gospel of the intrinsic goodness of man, thanks to God's becoming man, with the implied consequence of the salvation of all men. His starting point is Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes, §22):
"Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man."
The Pope is constantly basing his teaching on these lines of Vatican II using them to illustrate this novel doctrine of universal salvation."
I had also "up my sleeve" another quotation where the Pius X Society defends the Inquisition and speaks against freedom of expression:
"This House believes the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ."
I spoke first for just over 8 minutes, from a prepared statement (see below) and then the priest said his bit also. He referred to the Scriptural and then the Historical reasons why he believed that the Catholic Church was indeed the Church of Christ. To be fair to us both, neither of us had a lot of time to cover so great a topic. I had to apologise that I was just scraping the surface, while he flashed diagrams and lists about and apologised for being unable to go deeper.
Responses from the floor were of mixed value. Unfortunately I was landed with those atheists etc., one in particular who was ribald and blasphemeous, who just took the opportunity to get a good dig at the abandoned Church of their youth. They agreed with my motion, but they didn't agree with me. I "interrupted" one young man when he talked about "errors in the Bible" I asked to name one, but he "hadn't brought his Bible" with him! I asked him then to retract his allegation until he could prove it, but he ignored the request and hurried on. Most of the RC speakers from the floor were dignified and articulate. They were not all older folk either, hankering after the old ways, but young people who take their religion very serious. You could not but admire their sincerity and zeal, although sadly, it is not according to knowledge and saving knowledge at that.
After questions from the floor, we both had 5 minutes to sum up our position where we were expected to answer any criticisms. I found Father Portugal's closing speech to be a little obscure. He never really attacked us, but kept it largely abstract. I "spoke on the hoof" in my closing remarks, and sought to answer some of the objections. I answered their historical argument i.e. Popes can trace their lineage the whole back to Peter. A howl of protest went up when I said that at one and the same time (1412) there were 3 Popes, one of whom was known as Pope John XXIII. Since there was also a Pope John XXIII some 40 years ago, I said that we could call one of them "Pope John XXIII, the First" and the other one "Pope John XXIII the Second." I took advantage of the fact that I was debating those of the Pius X Society and quoted one of their websites, where the late Pope John Paul II was accused of a new humanistic religion and a novel doctrine of universal salvation. I quote:
"Moreover, with the prolongation of his reign and the prolificacy of his writings and discourses, however, it has become ever more clear that Pope John Paul II is preaching a new religion, a humanism, a gospel of the intrinsic goodness of man, thanks to God's becoming man, with the implied consequence of the salvation of all men. His starting point is Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes, §22):
"Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man."
The Pope is constantly basing his teaching on these lines of Vatican II using them to illustrate this novel doctrine of universal salvation."
I had also "up my sleeve" another quotation where the Pius X Society defends the Inquisition and speaks against freedom of expression:
"But if the Church recognizes the freedom of conscience of the individual in his innermost heart, if the individual is free, at the risk of his salvation, to refuse the faith, it does not follow that he can propagate his errors and thus lead other souls to hell. So, the Church respects the freedom of conscience of individuals, but not the freedom of expression of false doctrines."
However, opportunity to use this quote never arose.
As I was drawing my concluding remarks to any end, I appealed to the folk gathered to consider the greatest question of all, "How can I get right with God?" and urged them to trust alone in Christ's great once and for all sacrifice for sins. The debater stood back and the evangelist took over.
We
lost the vote, probably about 2-1. Several young people from the Latin
Rite congregation gathered round me at the end to seek to debate some
issues, particularly how I could be so confident about the authority of
the Bible, while rejecting the authority of their church. I
reminded them that the Bible is the word of God and that God does not
need a church to authorise His word. The church, of whatever stamp, may
have the authority of a witness, but never of a Judge. In the end, we agreed to differ.
OPENING SPEECH BY COLIN MAXWELL PROPOSING THE MOTION
"This House believes the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ."
I
am a Bible believing Christian. I believe the Bible is the word
of God and to the authority of this Book, all churches must ultimately
bow. No one can ever sit in judgment over God's word.
We must ask and answer 3 simple questions:
Jesus Christ promised that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18) While individual congregations and denominations come and go, yet there will always be a people on earth witnessing to gospel truth. The Church at Ephesus was warned that their light would be taken away if they did not repent of their sins. (Revelation 2:5) The Church at Rome was warned not to be high minded, but to fear lest they be broken off in unbelief (Romans 11:20) Such may be removed altogether or they may be allowed to go through the motions, even if the glory departs (1 Samuel 4:21) and they cease to be a church in the eyes of God.
Christ's Church cannot be confined to any one denomination. God's people are in the same camp, even if found in different tents.
Those who may consider themselves part of the true church of Christ are those:
[i] Who have been born again in the Bible sense of the word. This is not to be confused with baptism of whatever rite. It is a radical, conscious change of heart when the grace of God brings the soul from death unto life. It may not be as dramatic in detail as Paul's Damascus Road experience, but it is as effective in changing the life of its recipient.
[ii] Such folk, being taught of God (John 6:44) will embrace what is called "the Apostle's doctrine" which is found only in the Bible when it is interpreted consistently with itself.
[iii] Those in Christ's church will show their saving faith by their good works. They will, through the Holy Spirit (who indwells them) walk separately from the world, not by shutting themselves up as hermits behind high walls, but by living among the people as a witness that Christ's religion is real and can prosper even in a hostile environment.
What we have said, although basic, must suffice on this first point.
[i] The Catholic Church forfeits its right to the claim of being Christian because it preaches another gospel, far removed from God's word. Salvation, in the Bible, is by grace alone and justification before God is by faith alone in Christ alone. Rome has introduced another way of salvation which doesn't save. Instead of pointing the lost and anxious sinner to Jesus Christ and His one, finished, sacrifice for sins forever, Rome points the sinner to other supposed sources including the sinner himself. Instead of looking direct to Jesus Christ, Roman Catholics are encouraged to look to a plethora of sacraments, to the Pope and his priests, to a whole host of saints (some of whom have never existed) to the Virgin Mary and to their own good works. Like the Pharisees of old, who stood condemned by Christ, Rome effectively shuts up the kingdom of heaven against men: for they neither go in themselves, nor suffer them that are entering to go in. Christ cannot own as His church such as would come under such condemnation.
[ii] Rome has officially accursed those of us who hold to the truth that the Bible alone is our sole rule of faith and practice. She has introduced and elevated what she calls tradition to equality with Scripture. However, on close examination, such tradition is usually indefinable, largely inaccessible and grossly doubtful. Such an abandonment of the Apostle's doctrine has taken Rome into apostasy against God.
[iii] The history of Rome, coupled with present day scandals, is not one of holiness. Her history is one of blood. The Church, through the Inquisition and other means, exterminated thousands of Protestants, whose sole crime was to possess and read a Bible free outside the dictates of the Catholic Church. She has redefined sin to her own satisfaction, and made everything subservient to the cause of the Pope and his church. The Roman Catholic Church is depicted in Revelation 17 as the mother of harlots and the abominations of the earth.
Again, we could say much more, but time hurries us on.
Again, individual congregations and denominations may come and go. But those groups which remain faithful to the principles already alluded to i.e. the simplicity of the way of salvation in the uncluttered Christ alone, the authority of the Bible alone and the necessity of holiness may consider themselves to be part of the body of Christ. Whatever our disagreements may be over in secondary matters, we stand united on the great fundamentals of the faith, as revealed in the written word of God.
This is seen in many ways, not least in the sharing of our pulpits, the use we make of each others commentaries and sermons and hymns and the rise of many interdenominational agencies to promote the various forms of Christian witness including apologetics, Bible translation and missionary endeavour.
I conclude: Bearing these things in mind, even though I have but scraped the surface, I have given ample proof why I back the motion:
"That This House believes the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ."
THE END
See also: Is Rome a Christian Church? - We answer the minister of Trinity Presbyterian Church (Cork) who thinks it is
We must ask and answer 3 simple questions:
1) WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?
Jesus Christ promised that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18) While individual congregations and denominations come and go, yet there will always be a people on earth witnessing to gospel truth. The Church at Ephesus was warned that their light would be taken away if they did not repent of their sins. (Revelation 2:5) The Church at Rome was warned not to be high minded, but to fear lest they be broken off in unbelief (Romans 11:20) Such may be removed altogether or they may be allowed to go through the motions, even if the glory departs (1 Samuel 4:21) and they cease to be a church in the eyes of God.
Christ's Church cannot be confined to any one denomination. God's people are in the same camp, even if found in different tents.
Those who may consider themselves part of the true church of Christ are those:
[i] Who have been born again in the Bible sense of the word. This is not to be confused with baptism of whatever rite. It is a radical, conscious change of heart when the grace of God brings the soul from death unto life. It may not be as dramatic in detail as Paul's Damascus Road experience, but it is as effective in changing the life of its recipient.
[ii] Such folk, being taught of God (John 6:44) will embrace what is called "the Apostle's doctrine" which is found only in the Bible when it is interpreted consistently with itself.
[iii] Those in Christ's church will show their saving faith by their good works. They will, through the Holy Spirit (who indwells them) walk separately from the world, not by shutting themselves up as hermits behind high walls, but by living among the people as a witness that Christ's religion is real and can prosper even in a hostile environment.
What we have said, although basic, must suffice on this first point.
2) THE PROFESSING CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT MEASURE UP
[i] The Catholic Church forfeits its right to the claim of being Christian because it preaches another gospel, far removed from God's word. Salvation, in the Bible, is by grace alone and justification before God is by faith alone in Christ alone. Rome has introduced another way of salvation which doesn't save. Instead of pointing the lost and anxious sinner to Jesus Christ and His one, finished, sacrifice for sins forever, Rome points the sinner to other supposed sources including the sinner himself. Instead of looking direct to Jesus Christ, Roman Catholics are encouraged to look to a plethora of sacraments, to the Pope and his priests, to a whole host of saints (some of whom have never existed) to the Virgin Mary and to their own good works. Like the Pharisees of old, who stood condemned by Christ, Rome effectively shuts up the kingdom of heaven against men: for they neither go in themselves, nor suffer them that are entering to go in. Christ cannot own as His church such as would come under such condemnation.
[ii] Rome has officially accursed those of us who hold to the truth that the Bible alone is our sole rule of faith and practice. She has introduced and elevated what she calls tradition to equality with Scripture. However, on close examination, such tradition is usually indefinable, largely inaccessible and grossly doubtful. Such an abandonment of the Apostle's doctrine has taken Rome into apostasy against God.
[iii] The history of Rome, coupled with present day scandals, is not one of holiness. Her history is one of blood. The Church, through the Inquisition and other means, exterminated thousands of Protestants, whose sole crime was to possess and read a Bible free outside the dictates of the Catholic Church. She has redefined sin to her own satisfaction, and made everything subservient to the cause of the Pope and his church. The Roman Catholic Church is depicted in Revelation 17 as the mother of harlots and the abominations of the earth.
Again, we could say much more, but time hurries us on.
3) SINCE THE PROFESSING CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT MEASURE UP, THEN WHO DOES?
Again, individual congregations and denominations may come and go. But those groups which remain faithful to the principles already alluded to i.e. the simplicity of the way of salvation in the uncluttered Christ alone, the authority of the Bible alone and the necessity of holiness may consider themselves to be part of the body of Christ. Whatever our disagreements may be over in secondary matters, we stand united on the great fundamentals of the faith, as revealed in the written word of God.
This is seen in many ways, not least in the sharing of our pulpits, the use we make of each others commentaries and sermons and hymns and the rise of many interdenominational agencies to promote the various forms of Christian witness including apologetics, Bible translation and missionary endeavour.
I conclude: Bearing these things in mind, even though I have but scraped the surface, I have given ample proof why I back the motion:
"That This House believes the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ."
THE END
See also: Is Rome a Christian Church? - We answer the minister of Trinity Presbyterian Church (Cork) who thinks it is
FREE PRESBYTERIAN ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM
ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE