Posted by
ValiantForTruth on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:56:13 PM
Having declared that the Reformation is over because the major differences that separated Protestants and Roman Catholics over the doctrine of justification have been settled, Noll and Nystrom then claim that the key remaining difference with Rome has to do with the nature of the church. The Roman doctrine of the church is that Rome possesses infallibility and is the sole representative of Christ, but this doctrine is derived from another more fundamental belief that Scripture alone is not the rule for the Christian’s faith and practice. As a result the doctrines of papal authority, the intercessory role of Mary, a sacrificing priesthood, baptismal regeneration, purgatory and indulgences have entered the Roman church practice.
Far from being an obsolete Reformation issue, the 1998 Papal Bull, Incarnationis Mysterium, states in detail how by obtaining an indulgence the pains of purgatory may be reduced for oneself or for the dead.
Yet the spokesmen of Rome tell us that the Holy Spirit has inspired the tradition of the Church as He has inspired Scripture. We may therefore trust Rome as much as we may trust Scripture. Indeed we may trust Rome more, because we cannot depend on our own understanding of Scripture: ‘The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and of the bishops in communion with him.’ These words are not from the sixteenth century, but from the official Vatican teaching of 1994. The convert to Rome today is required to believe what the Church believes.
The charge made by John Owen long ago remains true: ‘The church of Rome lays claim to the very same authority over and conduct of the consciences of men in religion as were committed unto Jesus Christ and His apostles.’ [Works, vol 14, p. 499]
The issue of authority is the real key to the Roman/Protestant division. Far from being an isolated belief it underpins everything that stands against evangelical Christianity. Let Rome’s claim to share in the rule of faith with Scripture be taken away, and her claim to mediate salvation through priest and sacrament must fall. It is irresponsible for Noll and Nystrom to write as though the nature of the church is an issue separable from the way of salvation, especially as they know that Rome claims their Church to be ‘an integral part of the Gospel’. [Evangelicals and Catholics Together] On this point the Roman Catechism is explicit…
‘They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.’ [Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 196-197]
Noll and Nystrom tell us that the anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century on those who left Rome to uphold evangelical belief are now removed. But they are only removed for those ready to blur the evangelical beliefs recovered at the Reformation. How can a person be an evangelical and acquiesce to such official statements of Roman belief as, ‘Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith…It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism’. [Catechism, pp. 433-434]
On the primary issue nothing has changed. The old claim stands that the Roman church of the apostolic age is the same Church of Rome today; the true Church as compared with the communities that only began with Martin Luther and are not to be called churches. So Pope Benedict, in his decree of July 10, 2007, answered the question why the Second Vatican Council did not use the word ‘church’ when speaking of the congregations of the Reformation:
‘According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.’