Sir, - Fr Enda Mac Cormack (July 9th) seeks to avoid the obvious implications of Paul's clear statement that the foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ. He reasons that this must only refer to the local, and not the universal, Church. But we must remember that the universal Church is comprised of every local church, the foundation of which, he agrees, is Christ.
Peter also refers to the foundation, quoting from Isaiah: "See. I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, for a sure foundation." Discussing the nature of the Church, Peter applies this prophecy, not to himself, but to Jesus. In a variation on the same theme Paul speaks of the Church being "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone". The revelation of Jesus Christ given to the apostles and prophets has been preserved for us in scripture and is the means by which Christ is revealed to each generation. Hence the stress the reformers placed on scripture. The variety of metaphors - rock, foundation and cornerstone - speak of Christ.
The view that Peter is the foundation rock involves another assumption which is untenable. The rock metaphor is changed and Peter becomes the head of the universal Church. But Paul emphatically declared that Christ is the head of the Church. I note also that no attempt was made to explain Paul's unequivocal ban on the elevation of specific leaders, including Peter. This strand of teaching in 1st Corinthians is an insurmountable obstacle for Roman Catholic apologists. The dogma of papal primacy exists in direct defiance of scripture.
Enda Mac Cormack also reads papal primacy into Clement's letter to the Corinthians. But the Church fathers wrote many such letters and sermons, none of which implies primacy. The study of history is instructive when testing the claims of this Church. When Church and state became linked in the fourth century, human rights abuses began to be perpetuated against non-conformists. In time this led to the crusades, inquisitions and other shameful events. These facts speak volumes.
Those like David O'Hanlon who would attempt to defend the indefensible, speaking of his Church being "constantly sustained through scandal and sin by the Paraclete" (June 16th), should ponder the attitude of God to the honour they ascribe to Him. Protestantism has also erected some monuments to false Christianity, such as apartheid in South Africa and discrimination against Roman Catholics in the North of Ireland. Biblical Christians need not defend those whose attitudes and actions are the antithesis of Christianity. Those who believe in papal succession must face reality and ask whether the leadership of their church was in any sense Christian during those dark ages. Let conscience, not dogma, speak here.
I was saddened that Enda Mac Cormack felt the need to designate myself and others who stress the authority of scripture as "anti-Catholics". He should appreciate that one may be a trenchant critic of certain ideas or beliefs without bearing ill feeling of any kind towards those who hold such views. - Yours, etc., Ian Kennedy,
Ferrybank, Waterford.