The following statement has been issued by the Moderator and Clerk on behalf of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster:
In light of recent criticism the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster wishes to publicly reaffirm its opposition to the Roman Catholic service commonly termed ‘The Mass’. In this ecumenical age, the false notion is propagated that there is little difference between the Roman Catholic Mass and the simple Communion Service as practised by Protestants. However, there is a vast difference. The historic creeds of Protestant Churches underline this difference by referring to the Mass as ‘blasphemous’, ‘idolatry’ and ‘injurious to the work of Christ.’
The reason for these statements is that the Mass purports to be a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ. It leads sinners to trust in the priest, the Mass, and the church rather than in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest who made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever (Hebrews 10v12). His is the only sacrifice that can deliver from sin.
Our objection to attendance at the Mass has nothing to do with bigotry or lack of respect for others as our critics often claim. During the funeral service of Princess Diana, the Chief Rabbi, on a point of religious principle, declined to enter the Cathedral and was praised for showing his respect by going as far as the entrance. Yet we and other Evangelical Protestants are often castigated and denigrated when, out of love and loyalty to our Saviour, we cannot countenance the ‘sacrifice of the Mass.’
Moderator: Rev Ron Johnstone
Clerk: Rev Ian Brown
Update
Rev Thomas Martin, minister of Lisburn FPC, has also made some comments about this matter calling on Peter Robinson to reconsider his statement, as reported in the Newsletter, see here
Update [Friday 25th Feb]
The Newsletter have carried a report on the statement which the Officers of Presbytery released, see here
10 comments:
They say that what you mock will surely overtake you. So you become a monster so that monster will not break you. Don't become that monster Mr McClung.
Chris
I doubt you will have to explain your cryptic comments.
Brian McClung
same old record, needle stuck, same old rhetoric over and over again.
Time to move on.
Is there anything that the free Presbyterians LOVE, All I hear is Hatred.
If Peter Robinson turned up at a mass it is not a declaration of belief in the mass, it is him showing his respect, honouring his departed friend, showing his love for his neighbour. And this type of love is the fulfillment of the Law (Roman) showing honor where honor is due (again Romans)and to suggest he would be Blaspheming is there no bottom to the depths that the Free Presbyterians will stoop to.
they know but choose to Ignore that Reverend is used only once in the Authorized version of the Bible, in Psalms, and then only in relation to the name of God, surely a sinful creature man attributing that same name to himself is Blasphemy, of course it is, but no doubt the Free Presbyterians have an excuse.
Time to move up and move one, start to love and forget about hate,
Suggesting that the appearance of Peter Robinson at a mass somehow suggests a belief in him of the validity of the mass is just like inferring that when Dr W Mccrea stood on a platform in support of the terrorist Billy Wright he is some way approved of everything the LVF did.
You're smarter than that Brian.
Gerry
God's truth never needs to move on. It is always up to date.
The FPC seek to love the truth and that invariably means that you oppose error. It is not hatred of the person but hated of error:
Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way, Ps 119:104.
It can't have been right in the past to refuse to attend the mass and all right now to do so. One or other has got to be wrong.
If it is right in the present to attend the mass then it was wrong in the past to refuse to attend. But Peter Robinson isn't saying this. He just believes there is political advantage in taking a new course. Nothing principled about that.
There are other ways of showing respect for a Roman Catholic neighbour than condoning that which is 'injurious' to Christ. Having been brought up in the west of the Province I am well aware of that where Roman Catholicism is in the majority and every Protestant has Roman Catholic neighbours.
As pointed out in the statement during the funeral service of Princess Diana, the Chief Rabbi, on a point of religious principle, declined to enter the Cathedral and was praised for showing his respect by going as far as the entrance.
I didn't hear of any clamour to criticise him but when it is an evangelical Protestant who would not countenance attending the mass because of its attack upon the finished work of Christ then a different rule applies.
Maybe it is a personal rebuke to the failure to stand for the honour of Christ that annoys people.
It is misguided in the extreme to claim that to attend the mass is a fulfilling of the law. That is a mighty twisting of Scripture. You must have forgotten that love/charity 'rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth', 1 Cor 13:6.
The Lord commands that His people to:
come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty, 2 Cor 6:17,18.
This is a passage that deals with worship among other things.
I was wondering how long before that old chestnut about 'Reverend' would be thrown in. If you care to read the Bible a little more closely you may discover that the word translated 'reverend' actually appears 314 times. A lot more than once. Neither does it appear only in respect to God. The same Hebrew word is used with reference to Moses and Gideon to name but two.
The reason it has given to ministers might just have something to do with 1 Tim 5:17:
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
One of the meanings given by Thayer in his Bible dictionary for the word 'honour' is 'reverence'.
I hold no brief for William McCrea so if you want an answer to that point you can always contact him. I have heard that he has given to others his reasons for doing what he did.
I think it time Gerry that you started to answer some of the points raised in the replies rather than sounding off repeatedly. You are swift at asking not very forthcoming at replying.
Brian McClung
Chris
No, I wait to be enlightened by your cryptic comment.
Brian McClung
Gerry, there is a hymn which has the following words:
No peace with Rome shall be our cry,
While Rome abides the same,
We'll let her know that Protestants,
Will not disgrace their name
Sadly Peter Robinson has disgraced the name of true biblical Protestantism with his recent comments and no doubt future actions.
As for your issue with the issue of 'Reverand' I do fail to see the connection with the matter at hand. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your thoughts on the 'Father' who will be conducting any mass Peter Robinson attends
Andrew
I have never sung that excuse for hymn.
We definitely do not sing from the same hymn sheet.
Do they sing that in the Gospel Halls? I seem to have missed that one
Suggesting that the appearance of Peter Robinson at a mass somehow suggests a belief in him of the validity of the mass is just like inferring that when Dr W Mccrea stood on a platform in support of the terrorist Billy Wright he is some way approved of everything the LVF did.
I hold no brief for William McCrea so if you want an answer to that point you can always contact him. I have heard that he has given to others his reasons for doing what he did.
What, he hasn't told you? or you have not asked him? Do you not think it would be a good idea to find out why he did it? You have no brief for him you say, Do you have a brief for Peter Robinson to make the comment "Peter Robinson isn't saying this. He just believes there is political advantage in taking a new course. Nothing principled about that." or is that making a judgement.
One can understand the Rabbi a member of the Jewish faith who would have a difficulty on principle on entering into a service of the Christian Faith, but it is a stupid comparison to this issue about a Christian who has a willingness to enter another Christian Church other than his own. Its the one Christ.
And as to me asking William McCrea why he did it, not likely, as you have said 'Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way', Ps 119:104.
ref :-I think it time Gerry that you started to answer some of the points raised in the replies rather than sounding off repeatedly. You are swift at asking not very forthcoming at replying.
That is me you are talking about of have we forgotten the Sabbath issue.
Whether it is the west of the province or the east or the north or the south we all have both catholic and protestant neighbours. Yes and some of us even have Baptist neighbours who as you know are neither catholic or protestant as they did not come out of the reformation.
of course neither did the free Presbyterian church come out of the reformation, unless there was a second reformation in 1951.
Gerry
There is no difference at all between the conduct of the Rabbi and a Bible believer refusing to attend the mass.
We simply do not recognise Romanism as a Christian Church. The Christ of Romanism is totally different from the Christ of the Bible. Romanism is old pagan, Babylonish religion dressed up as Christianity.
The mass is not a simple remembrance of Calvary as the Scriptures teach but according to Rome a re-enactment and a continuation of Calvary where the priest claims power to bring Christ down from heaven by turning the bread and wine into the actual body, blood, bones, joints and sinews of Jesus Christ.
You may be comfortable with this blasphemy of Christ but others are not. Even Norman Hamilton, no lover of Bible religion, has said yesterday that he would not be present at a mass. I trust you will now go along to him and remonstrate him also.
As to 'holding briefs' for anyone - I am not interested in party politics as I never have been a member of any party. When someone, politician or otherwise, makes a statement that goes against what they previously held and is now contrary to Bible teaching I will endeavour to set forth what the Bible has to say about it, 1 Tim 4:1-6.
As to your responding to comments the sabbath was an exception with you not the norm!
Brian McClung
Post a Comment