Is the Reformation Over? A Review by Iain Murray – Real Key Difference

I've taken a quick glance at what Mr. Murray has to say.

Mr. Murray is correct when he says that the RCC teaches that Justification is conferred at Baptism. His reference to CCC pages 196-197 are off the mark. First, pages 196-197 say nothing about the topic mentioned. The teaching of the RCC on that topic is this : if someone believes that all of the teachings of the CC are true, and that-someone either refuses to join the church or refuses to remain in the church they are warned that they could be lost. Incidently, they place a very special emphasis 'on all the teachings of the church'. Naturally, Protestants wouldn't be included because they don't believe all the CC teachings.

Murray is totally wrong on the anathemas pronounced by the council of Trent.

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

“If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Third Session CANON VI.

“If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema. “ Fourteenth Session CANON II

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not in deed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON IV

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.” Thirteenth Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.” Thirteenth Session CANON VI

“If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON V

“If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON XIII

“If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Second Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke 22: 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Second Session CANON II

“If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON X

These anathemas have not been repealed (or whatever that would be called in RCC terminology). I'm told, by BJ and others, that infallible papal pronouncements such as this cannot be repealed (I guess that would sort of contradict the whole infallible pronouncement idea).

As long as they remain, the RCC may say whatever it likes, but we non-Catholics are considered condemned to Hell by the very words of the RCC and, therefore, Biblical Christianity, which does not accept extra-Biblical teachings, and the RCC remain irreconcilable. That is the sad truth! The "Reformation" must continue until the RCC returns to Biblical Christianity or until Christ comes back, when I'm afraid many in both the RCC and "Protestant" circles will find themselves trying to explain their lack of salvation to a Savior Who claims not to know them.

Going to a church of any denomination does NOT magically turn you into a Christian. Saying the right formula of words does NOT do it. Only knowing Jesus Christ through a faith relationship will do that. All else falls into the "depart from Me, I don't know you" category.

Come on, now, Aurora. I explained this to you quite some time ago. And I took a great deal of time to do it. And you know it!

The key word as I told you before is "discipline". The "discipline" is NOT binding. As I typed the explanation (above) I had your husband in mind (surely you remember those posts). All those "disciplines" that "Protestants" think are placed on them, even up to today, HAVE BEEN LIFTED.

Discipline has never been binding or infallible because it leaves no room for mercy. I'm really disappointed, Aurora!

I've got no stomach, or time, for half-truths, false representations, and selective amnesia.

IT may very well be you who has to do the explaining.

You have told an untruth here, Aurora. Very serious charge, I'm making. We covered this before, so I'm finished with this.

I don't have the knowledge of how to copy and paste stuff using the computer. I hope you will excuse me if I type an excerpt from Vatican II.

"3. From her very beginning there arose in this one and holy church of God certain rifts (cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-19, Gal.1:6-9, 1 Jn. 2:18-19), which the apostle strongly censures as damnable (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11 ff.; 11:22). But in subsequent centuries more widespread disagreements appeared and quite large Communities became separated from full communion with the catholic church - developments for which, at times, men of both sides were to blame".

***note the blame on BOTH sides.

"However, one cannot impute the sin of separation to those who at present are born into these Communities and are instilled therein with Christ's faith. The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers".

"as long as they {anathemas} remain, the RCC may say whatever it likes, but we non-catholics are considered condemned to hell by the very words of the RCC and, therefore, Biblical Christianity, which does not accept extra-Biblical teachings, and the RCC remain irreconcilable" Aurorawatcher

This statement is absurd. No one, not the RCC, not Luther, not Calvin, has the power to condemn anyone to hell. Only God can do that.

TO AURORAWATCHER

In an above post I made the claim that you had spoken an "untruth". The implications are obvious, and they are wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm sorry for that. I really do think you have said some things that are incorrect. I realize first-hand the difference between mistakes and deliberate untruths. And I don't believe for a second that you would tell a deliberate untruth. Again, I'm sorry.

Thanks to all for inputs.

Ed, thank you for defending your position with the quote from Vatican II…

"However, one cannot impute the sin of separation to those who at present are born into these Communities and are instilled therein with Christ's faith. The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers".

Let’s look at the quote. What do you think it says?

Is separation from Rome a sin? What does it mean to be ‘instilled therein with Christ’s faith’? What does it mean that Rome accepts us as brothers if we return to Rome from the separation? Are we accepted as brothers in our Protestant churches that the Pope says are not churches?

Can we agree that Rome presents a mixed message when it comes to Protestants? Are we churches or not? I think your quote is probably what Murray is referring to in that the anathemas do not apply to those who soften their positions from historic Protestantism. Aurora makes a good point in that ‘infallible’ pronouncements are not easily revoked.

We have gotten off the main point of difference being that of authority. I think this is the real issue that Murray exposes; everything else comes back to authority.

Ed, what say you? Are Reformation communities of faith real churches are not?

I won't be able to address everything at this sitting because I have to ready for work. but let me start with the question about churches.

Many are unaware that Protestant and Orthodox representatives were invited to attend Vatican II. And to their great credit they accepted the invitation. There is a footnote in the documents about discussions regarding whether to use "church" or "community" with regard to Protestant and Orthodox groups. Rome was aware that some Protestant groups (back in the 1960's) did NOT want themselves referred to as "church" and so they went with "community". If you think about it, it was a lose-lose situation for Rome.

Valiant, my dear friend, Rome was saying that Ptotestants were accepted as brothers based on the Protestant love for Jesus Christ (and as it says later) for the Protestant love for the Scriptures. And all this outside the catholic church. If I had more time I present you with the response from the Protestants in attendance, who were surprised and pleased.

Gotta go.

A couple quick responses.

First, it doesn't matter what I think. But if we are members (the body) and Christ is The Head of the Church then we are members of the Head of The Church, Jesus Christ.

Real quick about priesthood. I don't know the context to which Mr. Murray was referring. A blind answer : I think Paul says that we are all priests and should offer ourselves (correct me if I'm wrong). It was the priest who offered sacrifice in the old covenant. Christ, The Great High Priest, was both Priest and Victim in offering Himself. My best guess, not knowing the context, is the reference to a catholic ordained priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass.

I'm sorry my friend. I'm running late.

It does matter to me what you think.

Your words are clear…’But if we are members (the body) and Christ is The Head of the Church then we are members of the Head of The Church, Jesus Christ...we are all priests and should offer ourselves...’

We agree here, and I would add that these beliefs are derived from Scripture.

But the Pope’s words are not clear at all...

‘According to Catholic doctrine, these [Reformation] Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.’ [quoted from the article]

To me this statement means that the Pope claims apostolic succession and therefore authority over the conscience of all believers, and since Protestants reject the doctrine of apostolic succession then they are outside the authority of the true church. Doesn’t the Pope believe that he has the authority of Jesus Christ and therefore he is the head of the church?

You know more about history than I do, but I believe there was a point where Martin Luther rejected the ordained priesthood of the cc. He had been an ordained Augustinian monk.

Apostolic Succession means a couple different things. The very early church had priests (ordained) and bishops, or overseers (ordained). Ordained included educational training and then the laying on of hands. Since Jesus wanted the Gospel preached to the whole world, and, since priests and bishops would die or be martyred, more priests and overseers-bishops would be needed.

It's the bishop of Rome who appoints the bishops (during present times). Each ordained priest who is ordained by a bishop can trace himself back to Peter, thru apostolic succession.

Since most Protestant churches don't have ordained priests they wouldn't have apostolic succession. The sacrament of Orders (Holy Orders) is the catholic priesthood, believed to have been Instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper. The element missing would be the ability to offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

I am a priest, but not an ordained priest. I could put on the priests vestments and say all the prayers of the Mass but it wouldn't be the Mass.

Thanks for giving me your view. I asked to know, not to argue with you.

Valiant, I really don't understand your question about the pope claiming to have authority over the conscience of all believers. I've never heard of that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Does the pope believe he has the authority of Jesus Christ? Does the pope believe that he is the head of the church?

Second question first. The answer is no. Christ is the Head of the Church. Benedict has two official titles : Bishop of Rome, and, servant of the servants of God. The CC believes that Jesus is the Head of the Church, and that Jesus has sent the Holy Spirit to Guide His Church. But the CC also believes that Jesus was well aware there would be problems in the Church, and that even the gates of hell would try to prevail against His Church. They believe that when Jesus gave Peter the keys He was giving him (Peter) a little extra authority over the other apostles (a primacy), subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to bind and loose, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

First question, the answer is no. Joseph Ratzinger, left to his own self, has no authority at all. And he would be the first to admit it. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church and Benedict, and that The Spirit makes sure nothing is bound or loosed that shouldn't be. Contrary to what some non-catholics think no pope has ever tried to add a 4th person to the Trinity or subtract one, either.

That said, there have been some terrible popes. And Luther ran up against one of them, no doubt about it.

Vatican II made it clear that the prior requirement of returning to the CC is no longer on the table. Vatican II made it clear that the CC recognizes non-catholic christians as brothers based on their love for Jesus Christ, and especially for their love of Sacred Scripture.

Would the CC like unity? Yes. Is becoming catholic still a requirement? No. How can unity be achieved? According to Vatican II, by following after Jesus Christ. Does the CC sugar-coat the fact that there are still differences between catholics and Protestants? No, and neither do many Protestants.

By authority over the conscience I mean ultimate authority. For Protestants that authority is Scripture written by holy men moved by the Holy Spirit; that is, the prophets and the eye witness apostles. They claimed authority from God, “Thus saith the Lord…” And God bore witness to their testimony through signs and wonders.

Since the conscience is considered a man’s sacred property, no man has authority over another man’s conscience. That is left for God alone. I am thinking of 1 Peter 5: even Peter with his apostolic authority urged his fellow elders to be examples of humility to the flock.

If the Pope claims to be an apostle, then when he claims infallibility he is claiming ultimate authority as the other apostles. Is he not?

I think there is a misunderstanding about apostolic succession. The pope is not an apostle. Benedict can trace his ordinations as a priest, and as a bishop, back to Peter. But Benedict is not an apostle. I may be wrong here, but I think all the original apostles (except Judas Iscariot) became bishops when the church began.

In Acts 1, Matthias was picked, after prayer and the casting of lots, to take the place of Judas in the ministry and apostleship from which Judas had turned aside. In V.20 Peter refers to the Psalms when he said "his office let another take". The Douay-Rheims has it his "bishopric" let another take. I think the King James also has it "bishopric".

Later on other bishops were named but these bishops were not apostles. They followed the line of the apostles (apostolic succession) but if the office of bishop. Later on Augustine became a bishop who could trace his ordinations back to Peter but Augustine wasn't an apostle.

Infallibility is sometimes really misunderstood.

Let me ask and then answer a question : pretend that the pope is infallible not only in matters of faith and morals, but in trigonometry, too. He takes an examination consisting of one hundred trigonometry problems. What is the LEAST number of problems he will answer correctly?

Someone who answers "one hundred" may have a great understanding of trig, but not of infallibility. The correct answer is : zero. Although (pretending) infallible in trig, the pope might get none of the problems right. Being infallible in trig would mean being prevented from putting down the wrong answers. It would not mean being able to put down the right answers. The answer sheet could be left entirely blank - and would be, if the pope had not done his trig homework.

It's the same in real life, my friend.

I hate it when people think that they know more about my church than I do, so I will NOT do that to you.

What I am seeing is this: your description of RC doctrine is different than what I get from the spokesmen of the church and official church literature like the catechism. Again, this is from my perspective. Can you address that at all? Again, brutal honesty is best among friends.

Will you address the other matters mentioned by Murray? For example start with the indulgence regarding purgatory.

In short, an indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. Indulgences can be gained through certain prescribed actions determined by the church. Indulgences cannot be purchased. Indulgences can be applied to the living and the dead. Indulgences can be full (plenary), or partial.

BTW, I make no claim to know more about your church than you do. Mamy non-catholics insist that the CC has proclaimed Mary as 4th person of the Trinity.

The doctrine comes about from the belief that sin has a double-consequence, eternal punishment for unforgiven grave (mortal) sin and temporal punishment for sins already forgiven. Indulgences can take away some or all of the temporal punishments. This temporal punishment can be removed while a person is still alive, or in purgatory after they are Judged.

Valiant, can you give me an example. I've been going on off the top of my head except for things about Vatican II. If there is a conflict let me check it out and get back to you.

Why do I get nervous when you talk about brutal honesty among friends.

Two things I won't do : I won't defend the RCC when they have done wrong. I won't agree with you "just" to be a nice guy.

I was NOT referring to you. You have never done that to me, nor will I do it to you. Brutal honesty meant prejudice and ignorance are acceptable answers.

So the things from Murray that you have not objected to are fairly presented by him?

I have presented to you my understanding of the doctrines that you have responded to.

I only gave Mr. Murray a quick read.