Paisleyism and the Papacy.

Paisleyism and the Papacy


For decades Paisleyism blasted the Papacy, together with all its ecumenical associates, with the torch of Scripture; steadfastly affirming that the entire system of Roman Catholicism was antichristian at best and overwhelmingly sinful at worst. Standing on the doctrine of separation, Rev Ian Paisley was scathing in his denunciation of Roman Catholicism and on all that sought ecumenical association there with; such strong denunciation in the name of evangelical Protestantism, poured from pulpits, press releases, public platforms and from various publications, while a special kind of vilification was reserved for the Irish Presbyterian church and its members.


Mr Paisley senior, called all the protestant churches, outside his own, apostate, while at the same time, his college, branded dispensational church assemblies as mere cults. These tactics were adopted, to empty long established protestant churches and to fill Free Presbyterian churches, all under the guise of ‘earnestly contending for the faith, once delivered to the saints’. There was also a strategy employed, whereby Free Presbyterians were so conditioned into thinking that there was no where else that preached the gospel outside of their churches; this tactic holds fast to this very day, when discouraged or disaffected Free Presbyterian church members, remain in attendance, even though they see through the hypocrisy and sham.


So Paisleyism claimed to stand for all that the Bible taught, while at the same time, branding the Pope as an antichrist, and insisting that the final Antichrist, ‘the man of sin’, would without doubt be a Roman Pontiff. Parallel teaching from the Free Presbyterian church branded the European Union as the Kingdom of the beast, (antichrist); interestingly Rev Ian Paisley took his MEP seat there, it was strange that his church did not discipline him for such defiant duplicity and grievous compromise of original principles.


At the commencement of the troubles here, Paisleyism carried the doctrine of separation onto the political platform and created a particular brand of unionism which destroyed all other unionists; this particular destructive tactic, was having success in church circles, so this uncompromising position was adopted in the political arena as well. Paisleyism had widened the theatre of operation against the Papacy and Irish Republicanism, to include the spiritual and political armaments. Paisleyism blamed the troubles in Ulster on what it called Popery, which it saw attacking, what appeared to be a corrupted and weak form of Unionism. Any interference from Dublin was viewed by Free Presbyterianism, as another inroad of Popery. Such was the strength of feeling amongst Free Presbyterians that, anyone associated with south border trade was frowned upon, southern goods were even boycotted, and cooperation with Dublin was out of the question.






Whether by design or mere accident, what Free Presbyterianism had accomplished over the duration of the troubles, was for itself to have become a model of the Papacy; a combined political and religious establishment, with its own rules, codes, courts and disciplines; declaring everyone outside as heretic, estranged, misguided or apostate and having a hierarchy under a sole ruler. When Paisleyism entered into power sharing government, its entire structure began to fragment; many in the Free Presbyterian church saw power sharing as an abandoning of scriptural principles, but objection for them, was not an option. Things were different in the political wing of Paisleyism; Mr Alister had the courage and conviction to raise a creditable voice of opposition to the detriment of the DUP.



Now, in this new political dispensation in Ulster, secularism is handed pride of place while religious and spiritual matters are considered as less than relevant. In recent days both Paisleyism and the Papacy have been hung out to dry on the line of hypocrisy under the scorching sun of accountability. Both these, seemingly blighted organisations are being examined under the spot light of public opinion. Both parties must be made to give account of inflammatory statements or actions which provoked trouble in the past, if it was wrong then, it must be put right now; these things just cannot be swept under the carpet of secrecy. It appears that both these organisations encouraged people into taking wrongful actions in the past, it is time for these same organisations to publicly renounce their wrong doing and then help those that they encouraged to go astray.



For years, the Papacy covered up the child sex abuse scandals and ignored the torment that victims were left to suffer in; similarly, Paisleyism covered up, amongst other things, the situation of cheating amongst the students in its Bible College; some of the offending students were made to resit examinations or do an extra year, before going into pulpits, while ministers in pulpits that had cheated in their time at College continued unpunished. The whole question of trust is broken by both organisations, albeit on different levels. Both these organisations operate their own church laws and courts, appointing commissions to investigate various matters within their organisations; has there been fairness here? Have records of these examinations been kept? Are they open to public scrutiny? What about the many victims of deep psychological abuse which have been abandoned for years by both these organisations, are they not worthy of consideration and help today?





When the Papacy has been confronted with the vile and lewd action of some of its clerics in the past, there is still a degree of cover up going on, there is still a reluctance to come clean and to put matters right, irrespective as to the cost. Similarly with Paisleyism, if past actions and words were wrong regarding the Papacy, regarding protestant and dispensational churches, regarding various unionist leaders and parties, then how can they be right now, as today’s position seems to imply? In the past, Free Presbyterianism presented the doctrine of separation as a rule of faith and practice for its people; Free Presbyterians believed that it was wrong to fellowship with what their ministers called apostate churches, they believed that God had raised up Ian Paisley, to defend them
against Irish Republicanism and the Papacy. Moreover they were taught that it was wrong to share power with law breakers and that their leader would never do this, neither would he tolerate Dublin interference. Today, Paisleyism just cannot turn its coat, shred all its former principles and walk away into secular silence; there are multitudes of ordinary people left victims of mental and spiritual anguish, scores of people are devastated and torn asunder, they deserve answers to questions; they are victims of an abuse of trust.


The sad irony is that both Paisleyism and the Papacy have left a legacy behind in Ireland, of which all the people, regardless of denomination are deeply ashamed and hurt. Both these organisations have multiplied victims, whose cries are echoing today, while they themselves have allowed the name of Christianity and decency to be trodden in the gutter of unbelief and shame.


Politicians, who aspire to Catholicism, are showing their displeasure against their church, while politicians, who adhere to the reformed faith, are showing their displeasure against Free Presbyterianism. When secular leaders begin to question the religious establishments on moral grounds, then there is obviously something very wrong. Some may argue that Ulster’s political future is bright, that may be so, time, perhaps will tell; what is alarmingly obvious, is that the spiritual future is far from bright. Paisleyism and the Papacy have been instrumental in bringing reproach upon Christianity and offending a sin hating God, by dishonouring God’s Word and driving people from God, into atheistic secularism.


In order for lasting progress to be made here, morality must be returned to its foundation, which is the Word of God. With this in place, then the plight of victims could be dealt with honourably and sensitively.


Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)