Is the new pope a Catholic?

'Guide me O thou great co-mediatrix?' Francis I prays to Mary 

OK. I get it. White smoke has billowed. A Cardinal has swapped his red get up for a white one. Benedict XVI has disappeared into the shadows never to be seen again. Francis I is the new pope. But is is he a Catholic? No, seriously. Is he? You know, I don't reckon he is. 'Uh' you might say, 'what you talking about Prot-head? Course the pope's a Catholic. Stupid.' Yeah, yeah, I know. But being pope and stuff isn't exactly a Catholic thing to do. Certainly not in the modern Roman Catholic, full-on infallibility mode sense of the word. The infallibility thing only happened at Vatican I in 1870. And despite what they say, there isn't a shred of evidence in the New Testament that the apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. That idea was fabricated later to give a retrospective smattering of biblical authority to the papal office. 

You see, catholicity as in 'We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church' means holding to the faith revealed in Holy Scripture and believed by the Church throughout the ages. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 882 states: 

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Who on earth believes that apart from the Roman Catholic Church? Departing from the Catholic faith and then demanding that everybody else subscribes to your distinctives smacks more of a sect than a church with any claim to true catholicity. I mean, 'full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered'? C'mon. You're not the boss of me, Francis I. I acknowledge only One who who has supreme and unhindered power over the whole Church and that's Jesus. The Puritan Richard Sibbes was right to say,

Then, if the question be, which is the catholic truth – Popery or our religion – I say not Popery, but our religion. That which ‘without controversy,’ all churches have held from the apostles’ time…that is catholic. (Works of Richard Sibbes, Volume 5, Banner of Truth Trust, 1977, pp. 477-78). 

So, is the pope a Catholic? Well, no, actually. 

Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger

In an online "Fleabytes" broadcast entitled No Pope of Rome?, David Robertson, editor of the Free Church of Scotland's Monthly Record pondered the significance of Pope Benedict XVIth's state visit to the UK in September 2010. It was a thoughtful piece, reflecting on the dangers of religious prejudice and sectarian bigotry.

As a prominent Minister in one of Scotland's most avowedly Protestant denominations, Robertson was careful to say that he disagreed with some of the main tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, "I'm not going to defend the papal office. I think that Catholic soteriology is wrong and confusing, their view of baptism is wrong, and their view of the Mass is at best nonsensical and  at worst, blasphemous. And to be honest, I don't even think that there should be a pope".

However, brandishing the book under review in this post, Robertson said that reading Benedict XVIth's Jesus of Nazareth made him warm to the pope as a "Christian brother". Surprising words from a man in his position. Robertson attempted to justify his stance towards "brother Ratzinger" by quoting what Robert Murray M'Cheyne wrote concerning the Bavarian Roman Catholic priest, Martin Boos,

...the living servant of Christ is dear to my heart, and welcome to address my flock, let him come from whatever quarter of the earth he may.... If dear Martin Boos were alive, pastor of the Church of Rome though he was, he would have been welcome too; and who that knows the value of souls and the value of a living testimony would say it was wrong?

Boos was an unusual Roman Catholic clergyman in that he believed in justification by faith alone (see here and here). Ratzinger, however, doesn't. When Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, his initial response to the Joint Declaration on Justification by the Holy See and the World Lutheran Federation, was to pronounce that Lutheran doctrine of justification is incompatible with the Roman Catholic teaching on the consequences of baptism. In his book on Saint Paul, Ignatius Press, 2009, Ratzinger looks at Paul's teaching on justification by faith. He says that "Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love." (p. 82) While it is right that the faith which alone justifies "works through love" (Galatians 5:6), it is not the case that we are justified on account of our love to God and man so that, "And thus transformed by [Christ's] love, by the love of God and neighbour, we can truly be just in God's eyes." (p. 83). That is in keeping with classic post-Tridentine Roman Catholic teaching on justification. Faith and works are merged as the basis of the sinner's justification before God. Given what Paul wrote in Galatians 1:6-9 concerning false teachers who denied justification by faith alone, I wonder whether Robertson was wise to suggest that the current pope might be welcome in a Free Church of Scotland pulpit.

And so to the book that made David Robertson so warm to Joseph Ratzinger. I can certainly understand what Robertson means, as there are many good and helpful things in this work. Given the often heard Protestant complaint that Rome pays little attention to the Bible, it is refreshing that the current leader of the Roman Catholic church has devoted sustained and serious attention to Scripture's witness to Jesus Christ. Ratzinger makes it clear that this study is in no way an exercise of the magisterium (Rome's official interpretation of the Bible). Rather, he says it is, "solely an expression of my personal search 'for the face of the Lord' (cf. Ps. 27:8)."

The book gives a portrait of the life and teaching of Jesus from his baptism to the transfiguration. In his approach to the Bible, Ratzinger adopts the practice of "canonical exegesis". He attempts to read individual texts of Scripture in the light of the whole. He deploys a "Christological hermeneutic", which recognises that Jesus is the key to understanding the Bible as a unity. He has a fine sense of the redemptive-historical flow of biblical revelation. Ratzinger's handling of Scripture is often insightful and is shot through with telling practical application.  He thoughtfully relates teaching of Jesus in 1st century to important issues in the 21st. His interpretation of the Bible is informed by the rich heritage of patristic exegesis. However, Ratzinger's indebtedness to critical scholarship is betrayed by his use of the label "Deutero-Isaiah" for Isaiah 40-55, which he dates at the end of the Babylonian exile (p. 347).

Ratzinger's handling of Jesus' parable of the vinedressers in Mark 12:1-12 is a good example of his overall approach. He sets the parable against the backdrop of Isaiah 5 and Psalm 80 and carefully unpacks its message before saying of the words, "Come, let us kill him [the son], and the inheritance will be ours." (Mark 12:7),   "Isn't this precisely the logic of the modern age, of our age? Let us declare that God is dead, then we ourselves will be God.... At last we can do as we please." (p. 257).

In his role as Prefect for the Doctrine of the Congregation of the Faith (1981-2005), Ratzinger was a scourge of liberal theologians who wished to overturn the faith of the Church.  Here he has little patience with the view that Jesus was little more than a great teacher and a good example for us to follow. He makes it clear at the outset that Jesus of Nazareth, as the only Son of the Father, is fully God and truly man. Working from that standpoint, he discusses the key events of Jesus' earthly life, his baptism, temptations, Peter's confession that Jesus is the Son of God, and his transfiguration. He also gives attention to Jesus' teaching as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels; the Gospel of the Kingdom, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer and the message of the parables. Ratzinger devotes a chapter to the Principal Images of John's Gospel; Water, Vine and Wine, Bread and The Shepherd. Finally in a concluding essay on Jesus Declares His Identity, he looks at three Christological names, The Son of Man, The Son and I Am.

There are many things in this work that will warm the hearts of Evangelical Christians. Commenting on Jesus' self-identification as "I AM", he writes,  

"When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he" (Jn. 8:28). On the Cross, his Sonship, his oneness with the Father becomes visible. The Cross is the true "height". It is the height of "love to the end" (Jn. 13:1). On the Cross, Jesus is exalted to the very height of the God who is love. It is there that he can be "known", that the "I am he" can be recognized. (p. 349).  

While Roman dogmas don't unduly protrude in the text, they are nevertheless present as a reminder that the author of this study is none other than Pope Benedict XVI. Being "born of water and the Spirit", John 3:5 is explained in terms of baptismal regeneration, p. 239f. The Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is interpreted sacramentally in language suggestive of transubstantiation, p. 267-272. While Ratzinger does not spell out the Roman teaching on papal primacy in his handling of Matthew 16:18, a note in the back of the book (p. 373) shows that he still holds to this dogma. As the most recent "successor of Peter", Benedict XVI believes that he has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 882).

In commending Ratzinger as a "Christian brother" on the basis of this work, David Robertson has fallen into a similar trap to Evangelicals involved in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. In their book Is The Reformation Over, Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom argue that as Evangelicals agree with around two thirds of the teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that we should regard Roman Catholics as "Christians" without qualification. That is clearly problematic, as the differences concern serious, gospel-defining issues. Similarly, while we might agree with many of the things that Benedict XVI has to say in Jesus of Nazareth,  his teaching must be taken as a whole. We must also take into account his views on baptismal regeneration, the Mass, justification by faith, Scripture and tradition, and so on. Whether the pope should be regarded as a "Christian brother" who should be made welcome in Protestant pulpits should be on the basis of his theology in the round, not simply on evidence selectively culled from this book.

Let us never forget that in claiming "universal power over the whole Church", the pope has usurped the unique role of Jesus of Nazareth as the head of the Church. In his broadcast, David Robertson quotes Ratzinger's  words found on page 260 of this book and urges him to apply them to himself as pope. "When man and his institutions climb too high, they need to be cut back; what has become too big must be brought back to the simplicity and poverty of the Lord himself." That is precisely the problem. The papacy grandly claims the right to exercise "unhindered" power over the people of God. If Ratzinger really meant what he said regarding returning to the simplicity and poverty of the Lord, and took his own words to heart, he would resign from office forthwith and become a simple preacher of the gospel. His book was first published in 2007. As yet there is no sign of the current pope renouncing his claim to be the "Vicar of Christ" and vacating the Vatican so that Jesus of Nazareth can take centre stage in the Roman Catholic Church. That in itself speaks volumes and should put us on our guard before Evangelical Protestants start enthusiastically hailing Ratzinger on the strength of this volume.

Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, by Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, Bloomsbury, 2008 paperback edition, 374pp.

John Owen on the authority of the pope

Yesterday I gave a paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome Reloaded to the Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. Here's an excerpt:

One of Cane’s main arguments in the Fiat Lux was that before England departed from Rome during the reign of Henry VIII, the nation was at peace with itself. Since relinquishing the authority of the pope, however, the country had been beset by terrible divisions between the various Protestant sects. There was nothing for it but to return to Rome, only then all would be well again, ‘we have no remedy for our evils, no means of ending our differences, but by a return unto the rule of the Roman see.’

The legitimacy of the pope’s authority was one of the key points at issue between John Owen and his Roman opponent, John Vincent Cane. He deployed five main lines of argument against the Roman Catholic claim that the pope has universal authority over the Church.

1. Exegetical

The key biblical text that Rome cites to prove its claims concerning the pope is Matthew 16:18 & 19. They reason that as the pope is Peter’s successor as Bishop of Rome, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven now belong to him. Owen however disputes this, devoting virtually a whole chapter of A Vindication to demonstrating that there is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that the apostle Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome. He applies the words of Jesus, “Upon this rock I will build my church” not to the pope, but to the whole Catholic Church, which is comprised of individual believers who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

2. Historical

If the Bishop of Rome was indeed granted universal authority over the Church, then we might expect to find evidence of this in early church history. Cane tries to argue that this is the case, claiming that it was the pope who summoned the council of Nicaea in order to defend the deity of Christ. Owen won’t let him get away with that one. With his expert knowledge of the creedal heritage of the church, he easily sets the record straight. The Bishop of Rome did not preside at Nicaea. Neither was he given a place of special prominence at the Council of Chalcedon. Indeed, in some of the first six ecumenical councils, much to his chagrin, the power of the Bishop of Rome was expressly limited. So much for the ‘universally acknowledged’ authority of the papacy!

3. Christological

Cane argued that since his ascension Christ can no longer be the visible head of the church. According to the Franciscan, Christ was only the head of the church in his human nature. The church apparently needs a visible, human head and that role is now fulfilled by the pope. However, as Owen points out, in suggesting this, Cane was departing from the Catholic faith by driving a wedge between the divine person of the Son and his humanity.

As we have just seen, Cane wanted his readers to believe that the pope was the great champion of Christological orthodoxy at Nicaea and Chalcedon. But now he makes him the living embodiment of the Nestorian heresy condemned at the latter Council. Owen insists that Jesus Christ is the ‘supreme and only head of the church catholic’. He exercises his rule over the church through his appointed bishops or elders. But no bishop, not even the Bishop of Rome may claim to be the head of the church In replacing Christ with the Bishop of Rome as head of the visible church, Rome was as good as admitting that the pope was the Antichrist.

4. National

Owen’s opponent endeavoured to win the people of these islands back to the Roman Catholic fold by saying that the pope, ‘is a good man, one that seeks nothing but our good, that never did us harm, but has the care and inspection of us committed unto him by Christ.’ Owen begs to differ, urging that a return to Rome would be nothing less than disastrous for the people of England,

let him tell us how he will assure us that if this good pope get us into his power again, he will not burn us, as he did our forefathers, unless we submit our consciences to him in all things; that he will not find out ways to draw the treasure out of the nation, nor absolve subjects from their allegiance, nor excommunicate or attempt the deposition of our kings, or the giving away of kingdoms, as he had done in former days.

In The Church of Rome No Safe Guide, the divine likewise warned his fellow countrymen to beware of the ‘insupportable yoke’ of the pope, with his claim to a divine right of universal rule over kings and sovereign princes. For Owen, the pope was the enemy of the peace, liberty and prosperity of the nation.

5. Prophetic

Writing in 1682, near the end of his days, Owen bemoaned the fact that many were endeavouring to minimise the differences between Papists and Protestants. The older view that the pope was the Antichrist was falling out of favour. However, listing the ‘idolatries, persecutions, murders and Luciferian pride’ of the pope and his church, Owen continued to identify the Bishop of Rome as the Antichrist prophesied in the Scriptures. There could be no alliance the man of sin.

On this point, we might do well to reflect on the words of Richard Baxter, "That if the pope be not [the Antichrist], he had ill luck to be so like him."

Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a former Catholic by Chris Castaldo

Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a former Catholic,

 by Chris Castaldo, Zondervan, 2009, 236pp

Here Chris Castaldo tells the story of how he left the Roman Catholic Church on becoming an Evangelical Christian. Sometimes converts to Evangelicalism from Rome have a touch of "hot-prot" zealotry about them. They are more than eager to denounce the errors of the church to which they once belonged. Not so Castaldo. Yes, he is clear on the gospel-defining issues that distinguish Roman Catholicism from authentic biblical Christianity, but he is not out to trounce Rome in a fit of conversionist passion. Rather, his aim is to help Evangelicals to gain a better understanding of Roman Catholicism so that we may be more gracious  and effective witnesses to Roman  Catholic friends and family members.

The writer gives five reasons why he converted from Rome to Evangelicalism, a full time faith, a personal relationship with Jesus, direct access to God, Christ-centred devotion and motivation by grace instead of guilt. Along the way he gives a portrait of Martin Luther's Evangelical faith and depicts the Catholic faith of Ignatius of Loyola and Gasparo Contarini.

Castaldo does not reject wholesale the Western Catholic tradition. He warns against a nuda Scripture approach which has little time for the theological heritage of the Church. The Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura confesses the supreme authority of the Bible, but the Reformers valued the teachings of the Church Fathers and accepted the ancient creedal formulae as important expressions of biblical truth.

A chapter is devoted to how Catholics view Evangelicals, which makes interesting reading. The writer also offers an analysis of different types of Catholic; traditional, evangelical and cultural and suggests how Evangelicals might best relate to people who belong to these sub-groups with grace and truth.

Castaldo gives a taxonomy of  Evangelical attitudes towards Rome, from the actively anti-Roman Catholic to the ecumenical. He aligns himself with the "positive identity" group, which, so he says is open about Evangelical distinctives while avoiding open criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. Such Evangelicals might act as co-belligerents with Roman Catholics on pro-life issues, but they hesitate to co-operate in evangelism and mission because they reject the institution and authority of the Roman Church and certain central doctrines. I don't see how criticism of Roman teachings can be avoided if we are to speak the truth in love, but Castaldo is right to warn against an overly belligerent "pit bull" approach when witnessing to Roman Catholic people.

The book is well written in an easy, anecdotal style, the writer often drawing on his own experience in talking to Roman Catholics about the gospel. He gives lots of practical advice on pitfalls to avoid when speaking to Roman Catholic friends and family members. On occasion Castaldo's irenic concern to be "nice" to Roman Catholics means that he pulls his punches and in places he could have been a little more robust in warning of the dangers of Rome. (See his qualified commendation of C. S. Lewis' words of congratulation to a convert to Rome on p. 180).

The final chapter, Glorify God and Enjoy Him Forever, is a moving and insightful meditation on the transfiguration of Jesus. One day we will see the glorified face of Jesus. Castaldo asks, "Can those who watch our lives, Roman Catholic or otherwise, observe in us the substance of this belief?" (p. 197).

 A useful appendix on How the Roman Catholic Church Became What it is: Trent to Vatican II concludes the book.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Rome's "damnable plus"

See here for D. M. Lloyd-Jones on Roman Catholicism. Here is a flavour of his address:

[Rome] is indeed a form of the antichrist, and it is to be rejected, it is to be denounced; but above all it is to be countered. And there is only one thing that can counter it, as I said at the beginning, and that is a biblical, doctrinal Christianity. A Christianity that just preaches "Come to Christ" or "Come to Jesus" cannot stand before Rome for a second. Probably what that will do ultimately will be to add to the numbers belonging to Rome.

We must warn them. There is only one teaching, one power, that can stand against this horrible counterfeit; it is what is called here "the whole armor of God".

It is a biblical, doctrinal, theological presentation of the New Testament truth. That was how it was done in the sixteenth century. Luther was not just a superficial evangelist, he was a mighty theologian; so was Calvin; so were all of them. It was that great system of truth, worked out in its details and presented to the people, that undermined and even shook the Church of Rome. Nothing less than that is adequate to meet the present situation. Christian people, your responsibility is terrible. You must know the truth, you must understand it, you must be able to counter false teaching.

Christian people, your responsibility is terrible. You must know the truth, you must understand it, you must be able to counter false teaching.

HT Gary Brady.

The Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it must Continue! by Robert L. Reymond

The Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it Must Continue!,

by Robert L. Reymond, Mentor, 2001, 155pp.

As the old saying goes, ‘You shouldn't judge a book by its cover'. And as far as this volume is concerned, the hoary cliche holds good. I mean, take a good look at the cover, ignoring the words for a moment. For starters it's purple, which alternates with pink as my teenage daughter's favourite colour. Then did you notice the little diamond motif? Everyone knows that diamonds are a girl's best friend. Taken together these two features might suggest that what we have here is a fine specimen of chick lit. But that ain't the case. Reymond is a bloke and his offering isn't about knitting, ponies or romance. So, you can't judge this book by its purple, diamondy cover. But you can judge it by it's subtitle, The Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it must Continue! Did you get that? It's not The Reformation's Conflict... What was all that About? or Why it was a bad thing and should Stop! Oh no, unlike some Evengelicals,  Robert Reymond wants the conflict to continue. 'Why on earth is that?' You might ask. I'm not telling you.

Seeing as this is ostensibly a book review, you might expect me to attempt to summarise Reymond's monograph and offer an appraisal of his efforts. But, no. I'm not even going to use the review as an excuse to dilate on the subject in hand with some thoughts of my own. Not this time. What I'm going to do is list the kind of people who should give serious attention to this book. So, here goes:

If you think that the Reformation's conflict with Rome is is about as relevant today as a mobile phone that doesn't take photos, then you should read this book.

If you think that the difference between the Reformers and Rome on justification by faith alone or justification by faith plus works is of little consequence to sinners in the light of the day of judgement, then you should read this book.

If you think that it doesn't matter that Rome elevates its traditions and the 'infallible' declarations of the pope to the same level as Scripture, then you should read this book.

If you think that recent Protestant attempts at rapprochement with Rome like Evangelicals and Catholics Together are a jolly good idea, then you should read this book.

If you think that the Reformation's alone's are not needed to preserve the integrity of the gospel against Rome's and's then toll lege, take and read.

Even if you are none of the above, this monograph will help you to see with fresh eyes the momentous difference between Rome and authentic biblical Christianity. Your vision of the gospel of free grace will be clarified and enhanced. You too should read this book.

The trouble is, having said all that, the book is sadly out of print. You won't get a copy from the publisher, but Amazon.co.uk has one left in stock and some new copies are available from the Amazon Marketplace. Failing that, you'll have to make do with a diseased secondhand copy. I mean, have you never sneezed while reading? Be brave. Even if you can only get a scabby used copy, take the risk and read this refreshingly honest account of the Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why it must Continue!

Benedict XVI: Commander of the Faith by Rupert Shortt

Benedict XVI: Commander of the Faith,

by Rupert Shortt, Hodder and Stoughton, 2006, 164pp

Back in September the news agenda in the UK was dominated by the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI. Millions of Roman Catholics consider that this man "has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 882). I reflected on that claim as I saw the diminutive German formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger make his way into Westminster Abbey on the Friday of the Papal Visit. "Unhindered power over the whole Church", that's really something. No wonder, when the arcane process by which popes are appointed seemed to indicate that Ratzinger was in for the top job, did the Cardinal tell the Lord, "Don't do this to me." He didn't. The Lord Jesus alone has unhindered power over the whole Church, and he has not delegated his absolute authority to anyone else. Nevertheless, on becoming Pope Benedict XVI, in his own mind, as well as in the minds of the Roman Catholic faithful, Joseph Ratzinger became the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church. Power to pronounce infallibly on matters of Christian faith and practice  was suddenly in his hands.

Rupert Shortt isn't interested in the biblical legitimacy of papal power. Or if he is, he doesn't say so in this book. His aim rather is to give an account of the life and ecclesiastical career of the man who would be pope. Ratzinger is a fascinating figure. He rose to prominence as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, slapping down pinko liberals and silencing liberation theologians. But during the 1960's he was allied with radicals like Hans Kung and Karl Rahner. Together with these men Ratzinger was an advocate for change  in the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council (1962). However, as the 60's drew on, Ratzinger's thinking began to alter. He became more attracted to the Augustinian vision of Hans Urs van Balthazar over and against Kung and Rahner's Thomist synthesis. Also, changes in the modern world signalled by student unrest at Tubingen, where Ratzinger was a member of the Catholic theology faculty, suggested that perhaps Rome's post Vatican II openness to the world wasn't such a good idea after all.

The die was cast. Ratzinger distanced himself from his old radical friends and looked on in horror at what had become of the Roman Catholic Church since the heady days of the early 1960's. After a succession of academic posts, in 1977 he was appointed Archbishop of Munich, before Pope John Paul II made him the Rome's heresy hunter-in-chief as Prefect for the Doctrine of the Congregation of the Faith (1981-2005). As Prefect Ratzinger would arise to defend the teachings of the Church in a rapidly changing world. It has to be said that Evangelical Protestants will have some sympathy with Ratzinger in a number of the battles he fought to maintain Rome's historic teachings. A cause celebre was that of Charles Curran, who taught at an American Catholic University. He openly questioned the Church's line on contraception and pre-marital sex. While Evangelicals don't have a problem with non-abortifacient birth control, on biblical grounds, we certainly don't believe in sex before marriage. Ratzinger had Curran's licence to teach in a Catholic University removed. He silenced those who wanted to see the Church take a more accommodating stance towards homosexuality. The Prefect also fought against the synthesis of Marx and the Bible that is liberation theology. Good on him. Although it is clear from his tone that Shortt doesn't approve of Ratzinger's hard line stance on these issues.

Protestants welcome the Roman Catholic Church's move towards worship in the vernacular since Vatican II. But attempts to render the the old Latin liturgy into English in the 1970's were viewed as disastrous by Ratzinger. Both in terms of excellence of language and theological emphasis, the new English translations left a lot to be desired. For example, one prayer ran "Lord, as we make this offering, may our worship in Spirit and truth bring us to salvation". Such Pelagian sounding sentiments rankled against the Cardinal's Augustinian theology and he insisted that the liturgy be revised to take these concerns into account.

But hang on a minute, before we get too excited, there is the matter of how Ratzinger attempted to undermine the Joint Declaration on Justification by the Holy See and the World Lutheran Federation. Central to the Declaration are the words,

By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit who renews our hearts while equipping...and calling us to good works.

The Cardinal didn't like the sound of that. The CDF published a response to the accord arguing that the Lutheran doctrine of justification is incompatible with the Roman Catholic teaching on the consequences of baptism. Ratzinger was right. The Joint Declaration was a classic ecumenical fudge. Look again at the excerpt just quoted. The words, "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God" are a fine statement of traditional Protestant teaching. However, in the next bit the waters are muddied considerably, "and receive the Holy Spirit who renews our hearts while equipping...and calling us to good works." [emphasis added]. It is true that on being united to Christ the believer is declared right with God (justified) and inwardly transformed (regenerated). But in Roman teaching justification involves not only a forensic declaration, but also inward transformation. Justification so defined is received at baptism and is capable of being enhanced and improved by the meritorious good works of the faithful. That is plain  contrary to the Protestant and I would say biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, Galatians 2:16. In the end, the accord was ratified. But the controversy highlights the fact that the differences between Rome and the Reformation teaching on justification by faith alone have yet to be satisfactorily resolved. It is the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone,  in Christ alone that safeguards the Augustinian insistence that salvation is by grace alone.

When Pope John II, whom Ratzinger had served so loyally died in 2005, the issue of who would succeed him was brought before the red hatted cardinals. After several rounds of voting, white smoke emerged from the Vatican signaling that Joseph Ratzinger had been appointed Pope Benedict XVI. And so it was that one Friday back in September I witnessed the 'German Shepherd' enter Westminster Abbey, the papal ensign fluttering incongruously on the Abbey's flag pole. It might be questioned whether it was right for the pope to be accorded the high honour of a state visit to this constitutionally Protestant nation. But his repeated message on the importance of faith-based values in public life was surely to be welcomed. As an Evangelical Protestant I have more in common with the current pope, than with Liberal Protestants such as John Selby Spong and his ilk. Benedict, an able theologian, boldly refuses to allow the Church over which he presides to conform to the relativistic spirit of the age.

However, nothing changes the fact that on becoming pope this man abrogated to himself "unhindered power over the whole Church", an authority that belongs to Jesus Christ alone (Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 1:22-23). His title "Holy Father" is an affront to God the Holy Father (John 17:11) and his title "Vicar of Christ" detracts from the unique ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7, 13-14). Rome's anathemas continue to ring out against justification by faith alone. Right at the heart of the Roman system is the blasphemy of the Mass which denies the saving sufficiency of the once and for all sacrificial death of Christ. Where biblical Protestantism says "alone" - Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, Rome still says "and", Scripture and tradition, grace and merit, faith and works, Christ and Mary. God must share his glory with idols as Roman Catholics bow in worship before their sacred images. This is the anti-Christian system over which Benedict XVI rules as Supreme Pontiff. Shortt describes him as "Commander of the Faith". But the faith he commands isn't that which is revealed in Holy Scripture which is able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, the one and only Mediator between God and men.

Oh, and talking of Popes and Vatican Coincils, have a look at Charles Hodge's letter to Pope Pius IX, declining an invitation to attend Vatican I - here.

* Thanks to blog reader Adrian Sargent for kindly sending me a copy of this book.

Some thoughts on the Papal visit

Everyone agreed that old Ratzy lacks the film star charisma of the last Pope to visit this green and pleasant land, John Paul II. Everyone agreed that the Pope's tour of the UK would be overshadowed by the child abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Everyone apart from Chris Patten, the Roman Catholic grandee charged with organising the event, agreed that the papal visit would therefore be something of a damp squib. Now, however, everyone seems to agree that the state visit of Benedict XVI was a rip roaring success. It turns out that the famously combative German Shepherd has a nice smile. He kisses babies. He is sorry for Rome's failure to protect children from predatory priests. He is given the ultimate political accolade, as David Cameron tries to enlist "His Holiness" as a spokesman for the Big Society. According to The Times, "The Government with Opposition MPs and Catholic and Anglican bishops is expected to spend the next few days working out how to capitalise on what is being described as 'the Benedict bounce'."

Of course, not everybody was quite so impressed. Richard Dawkins, who is rapidly becoming the unacceptable face of atheism denounced the Pope for his being leader of "the world's second most evil religion." No doubt disturbed by seeing the papal insignia fluttering in the breeze above Westminster Abbey, some Protestants demonstrators greeted Ratzinger's arrival at the Abbey with cries of "Antichrist, Antichrist!"  Ah, well, you can't please everybody.

Now, I am theologically predisposed to disagree with a man who claims, "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Such power belongs to Jesus Christ alone. But even I have to admit that Benedict's central message to civic society was bang on. Repeatedly he warned of the danger of rampant secularism being allowed to squeeze faith-based values from the public square. It seems that politicians are getting the point, with David Cameron saying, "For many faith is a spur to action. It shapes their beliefs and behaviour, and gives them a sense of purpose. Crucially, it is their faith that inspires them to help others. And we should celebrate that. Faith is part of the fabric of our country, It always has been and always will be." The Prime Minister "doing God", my, how things have changed.

But let's not get too carried away by all this. It will take more than the Pope's visit to revitalise the Christian faith in our country. Indeed, some aspects of the visit serve as a reminder of the fact that many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are far from the teaching of the New Testament. The very idea of a Pope exercising unlimited power over the whole church has no foundation in Holy Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church attributes the titles "Holy Father, and "Vicar of Christ" to the Pope. Evangelical Protestants agree with Rome on the doctrine of the Trinity as set out by the early church councils. But speaking of the Pope in the language just mentioned dishonours the blessed Trinity. The church has only  one Holy Father, that is God the Father (John 17:11). The true ‘vicar of Christ’ is the Holy Spirit,  who has come to earth in the place of Jesus, (John 16:7, 13-14). The Spirit of Christ dwells in the heart of every believer. The Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures is our ultimate authority. We need no infallible Pope to guide the church.

The high ceremony associated with the "beatification" of John Henry Newman is a far cry from the Bible, where all believers are called saints simply by virtue of their being set apart to God as holy through union with Christ, Romans 1:7.

The Masses at which Benedict officiated were a travesty of the Lord's Supper as instituted by Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Lord's Supper is a re-offering of the sacrifice of Christ and that the bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of the Saviour. This only became official church teaching in 1215 at the Second Lateral Council. The "elevation of the host" at the Mass, where the faithful adore the "transubstantiated" bread borders on idolatry. With the early church fathers and the Reformers we believe that according to Scripture the Lord's Supper is a fellowship meal that is to be kept by believers in remembrance of the finished work of Christ. The bread and wine are symbols to believers of Christ's body and blood. At the Lord's Supper we enjoy communion with the risen Christ, who is present at the Table by his Spirit. The Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation were consigned to cruel flames precisely because of their denial of the Roman doctrine of the Mass.

While we might applaud  Benedict's penetrating critique of of atheistic secularism and welcome his clear stand against the culture of death, Rome isn't the answer to the spiritual problems of modern Britain. With its many unbiblical teachings it is part of the problem. Evangelicals may act as "co-belligerents" with Roman Catholics on issues like abortion and euthanasia, speaking out for faith-based values in public life. But we also must be clear on the serious theological differences between Rome and genuinely biblical Christianity. Above all, what we need is not "Benedict's bounce", but a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon gospel preaching churches to enable us to proclaim the word of God with boldness and power. It is not enough for us to simply denounce the errors of Rome. We need to search our own hearts, return to the Lord and cry out to him that he will revive his work again in our land.

PTS Papal Protest

I'm writing this post in Starbucks, Paddington Station, in between munching on a tasty panini and slurping a nice big cup of cappucino. It's busy and the hubhub of friendly chit chat fills the air. My train isn't due to leave for home for another 30 minutes or so. Sitting here watching the world go by, it seems a million miles away from this afternoon's Papal Protest outside Westminster Abbey.

Quite a crowd gathered to cheer or jeer the pope on his arrival. Banners were unfurled and biblical texts placarded. Some chanted, 'We love the pope!', others shouted, 'Antichrist, Antchrist!'.

Me, I had several good conversations with members of the crowd and handed out some gospel literature. It was good to have fellowship with other members of the PTS. Stephen Holland interviewed me for one of his YouTube films. Jeremy Brooks, our Director of Ministries was interviewed by BBC News.

I hope that the protest was an effective witness for the gospel. A friend texted me to say that our singing sounded good on TV, so that's something.

Papal Protest

Later today I'll be heading off to London to take part in a protest against the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI. The event has been organised by the Protestant Truth Society, which exists to assist Christians and churches to stand for biblical truth in all its glory and against error in all its forms. It will be a peaceful protest. We have no wish to disrupt the Papal visit. We respect the freedom of Roman Catholics to follow their faith in this land. If they want to gather to meet the pope as he travels around the UK, that’s fine. On some matters we agree with him. For example, he is right to warn against an aggressively secular outlook that has little room for faith-based values in society. We admire Rome's strong stance on abortion, euthanasia and the unique value of heterosexual marriage.

The purpose of our protest is to bear witness to some important biblical truths that we believe are undermined by certain Roman Catholic teachings.

Doctrinal differences

Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics share a commitment to some essential Christian truths such as the doctrine of the Trinity and that Jesus is the Son of God who became man to save us from sin. But serious differences still exist.

1. Who is the head of the Church?

According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church,

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.(Para. 882)

We disagree with that claim. According to Scripture Christ is the sole head of the church He alone has supreme and unhindered power over the people of God, Ephesians 1:22-23. Matthew 28:18-20.

2. Who has authority over the Church?

Is it Bible plus the Pope making infallible pronouncements as Rome says, or is it  solely the Holy Spirit  speaking in the Scriptures?

3. What happens at the Lord’s Supper?

At the heart of Roman faith and worship is the Mass. Rome teaches that the bread and wine at the Lord's Table are "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ. At the Mass the priest re-offers the sacrifice of Christ. We believe that the Lord's Supper is a fellowship meal where the people of God eat bread and drink wine as symbols of the incarnation and sacrificial death of Christ. We feed upon Christ by faith as he is present among his people by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is no need to re-offer Christ's sacrifice as he atoned for sin once and for all at Calvary.

4. How may be come into the presence of God?

According to Rome the faithful may enter the presence of God through intermediaries such as the Pope, priests, Mary and the saints. We believe that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and men, 1 Timothy 2:5. Only by his obedience, blood and intercession may we draw near to the Father by the presence of the Spirit.

We think that it is worth bearing witness to these biblical truths that are undermined by Roman Catholic teaching.

Political

 The pope's visit also has political implications. In the past popes exercised huge political power in Europe and beyond. Famously it was the pope who refused to allow Henry VIII to divorce Catherine of Aragon, which led to Henry’s breech with Rome. Even today the pope wields political power as head of the Vatican City State. The Vatican has diplomatic relations with 178 countries and has a permanent diplomatic mission to the EU. We think that this is problematic, because the church was founded not to wield political power, but to preach the good news of Jesus to the world and nurture the followers of Christ. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world”.

When Pope John Paul II visited the UK in 1982 he came simply to encourage the Catholic faithful. But Pope Benedict XVI is here on a formal state visit. This throws up all kinds of constitutional issues for our Protestant nation. At her Coronation Oath Her Majesty the Queen swore to uphold,

the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel… [and] maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law

But only recently the pope was making overtures to disaffected Church of England clergymen, tempting them to convert to Rome over the issue of women bishops, much to the annoyance of the Archbishop of Canterbury. That puts the Queen as supreme governor of the Church of England in a very difficult position.

The reason why the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic is not a matter of religious discrimination. It is to save the UK’s head of state from a conflict of interest. Our sovereign should not be subject to the authority of another head of state, namely the pope.

We hope to highlight these issues by holding a peaceful protest this afternoon at The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Broad Sanctuary, Westminster, see here.

I discussed the Papal Visit with Matthew Smith on the this morning's BBC Radio Wiltshire breakfast programme. You might be able to catch the interview on BBC iPlayer, when it becomes available, here. It was broadcast around 7.45am, approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes into the programme.

Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom

Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom,

Free Presbyterian Publications, 2010, 108pp.

This publication has been timed to coincide with the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI (16-19 September). During his time in the UK the Pope will meet the Queen at Holyrood Palace, Scotland. He will address a gathering of both Houses of Parliament. Also Joseph Ratzinger will beatify Cardinal Newman, making him the first Englishman to be made a “saint” since the Reformation.

The impending visit has already caused some controversy, not least due to Ratzinger’s failure to deal with the problem of child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. Before becoming Pope he was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Rome’s disciplinary body (formerly called The Inquisition). It is alleged that as Prefect he knew what was going on, but did little to prevent children being abused by paedophile priests.

Evangelicals might feel a little unhappy concerning the high honours that will be accorded to such a man. But it seems that by and large we have given up the fight when it comes to the controversy with Rome. We appear to have forgotten what the Reformation was all about. The aim of this book is to set out the influence of Protestantism on our national life and to expose Roman Catholic false teachings.

The Pope presides over a system of sacramental salvation. He claims to be head of the visible Church, with supreme and universal power over the people of God. Since 1870 Rome has regarded the Pope’s ex cathdera pronouncements as infallible, elevating his authority to the level of Holy Scripture. The Virgin Mary is regarded as “co-mediatrix” alongside Jesus, compromising the unique saving value of Christ’s finished work. The Reformers were right to battle against unbiblical Roman Catholic doctrine in their day. Still we must contend for vital, gospel-centred Christianity in opposition to the errors of Rome.

Not all readers will agree with the authors’ Presbyterian views on Church Establishment or that the Pope is the Antichrist. But here is a timely reminder that the man who is due to visit these shores in September is a powerful leader of a false religion. Roman Catholicism robs our Lord Jesus of his unrivalled role as head of the Church and the only mediator between God and men.

Perhaps the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI will give Evangelical Protestants a fresh opportunity to graciously explain the differences between Rome and genuine, biblical Christianity.

* Reviewed for September edition of Evangelicals Now.

Is the pope really head of the visible church?

In the Prime Ministerial Debates prior to the General Election, a question was asked that managed to unite Gordon Brow, Nick Clegg and David Cameron. It was this, given his stance on homosexual rights and abortion did the candidates welcome the Pope’s visit to the UK in September? All three politicians said that they welcomed the Pope’s visit. And all three agreed that he was wrong on gay rights and abortion. I think that they were unitedly wrong on both counts. It is not necessarily a good thing that the Pope is visiting the UK, although we agree with him on the issues raised by the questioner.

When he arrives in the UK for a four day official state visit, the Pope Benedict XVI will meet the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, address a gathering of both Houses and Parliament and beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman. What should we make of all this? Hopefully it goes without saying that anti-papal bigotry is out of place. And I’m not sure that noisily protesting and waving placards is the best way to get out point over when the Pope arrives in our country. But when popemania hits the UK we might be given an opportunity to explain why we are not so enthusiastic concerning the arrival on our shores of Benedict XVI. I mean, not all Catholics are exactly over the moon about having the hardline Cardinal Ratzinger as the leader of their Church. When the Cardinal succeeded Pope John Paul II one American Roman Catholic complained, it "is like electing Rumsfeld after George Bush".

Now I realise that Evangelicals have largely lost interest in the controversy with Rome. We have other battles to fight such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the defence of our religious liberties, let alone the challenge of reaching the UK with the gospel. But we can’t get away from it that easily. In the face of a hostile secular society, Evangelicals are being increasingly drawn to Rome. After all, we are agreed on a good number of essential truths such as the Trinity and the virgin birth, sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ. In the States the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement has been actively trying to resolve outstanding differences between Rome and Evangelicals. Many question whether the divisions of Reformation were justified. Also in the States the Manhattan Declaration committed leading Evangelicals and Catholics to speak out on the issues of marriage, abortion and freedom of religion. Fair enough, but the Declaration also implied that both parties proclaim the same gospel. The UK’s counterpart, the Westminster Declaration included the obligatory Roman Catholic signatory.

But the Reformation isn’t quite over yet. Many of the great doctrinal differences between Rome and Evangelicals are unresolved and one of them is, “Who is the head of the Church?” So, what exactly does the Roman Catholic Church say on this matter? I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

CRC 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

This is a clear violation of biblical teaching. The blasphemous claim that the pope may exercise "unhindered power" over the Church is a direct challenge to the unique headship of Christ. The idea of the primacy of the Bishop Rome was unknown in the early centuries of Church history.

The New Testament knows nothing of hierarchical Church government with the pope lording it over cardinals, bishops, priests and people. Local Churches were led by their appointed elders. Elders served under the authority of the apostles. But all was in subjection to Christ, the one true head of the Church.

Our head, the Lord Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King.

His prophetic role is undermined by Roman Catholic teaching,

891: The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . .

As Prophet Christ continues to infallibly teach and guide the Church through the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. The Spirit enables the people of God to recognise the Bible as the Word of God and understand its contents. The ascended Christ has gifted the Church teachers with whose task it is to explain and apply the Bible to his people, Ephesians 4:11-12.

We need no other priest than Jesus, our great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. He atoned for our sins once for all on the cross. He ever lives to make intercession for us. Roman Catholic teaching denies this saying,

893: The bishop is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood," especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers.

Ministers are not priests who re-offer the sacrifice of Christ at the Mass. Christ's death atoned for sin once and for all, Hebrews 9:28. The only mediator between God and men is the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5. In him all of God's people are constituted a royal priesthood, 1 Peter 2:9. We recognise no popes, bishops, clerical priests or any other supposed mediators between God and his people. Christ alone is sufficient for that task.

Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. The exalted Jesus is head over all things for the church, Ephesians 1:22-23. He, not the pope has "universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", Matthew 28:18-20.

We therefore resist Roman Catholic claims concerning the pope's headship over the visible Church. The Bishop of Rome is a usurper and therefore cannot be a focus of unity for all Christian Churches. Christ alone is head of the Church. It would be an act of disloyalty to our Saviour to recognise any other Lord and head of the Church but him.

To be continued...

Who is the Head of the Church?

Last night I drove to Cheltenham to speak on behalf of the Protestant Truth Society at Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church on the queastion Who is the Head of the Church? 

Here's an excerpt from the intro:

At certain points in church history the big issue has been, “Who is the head of the Church?” This was the case at the time of the Reformation, when the Reformers insisted that Christ alone is the head of the Church to the exclusion of the pope. It was the defining point in the Disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843 that led to the founding of the breakaway Free Church of Scotland. The seceders could no longer tolerate the position where local grandees appointed church leaders. In 1934 the German Confessing Churches published the Barmen Declaration in an attempt to resist the Nazification of the Church. They asserted that the Church belongs solely to Christ and is subject to his Word alone.

I suggest that this is one of pressing issues of our time. In recent years the Government has attempted to ride roughshod over aspects of the historic teaching of the Church. Secular rights-based equality legislation has trumped biblical teaching on sexuality. Christian adoption agencies have had to close. Back in January of this year there was a titanic battle in the House of Lords to protect the freedom of Churches to employ only people whose beliefs and lifestyle are in accordance with the Bible.

Also, we can’t ignore pope’s visit to UK in September. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Bishop of Rome is the head of visible church. The goal of ecumenical movement is to reunite Christendom under the authority of the pope. How should we respond to that as Evangelical Protestants?

So, as we consider “Who is the head of the Church?” we will be bearing in mind both the political and the religious contexts of the question.

To be continued...

Catholic and Reformed by Anthony Milton

Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches
in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640,
by Anthony Milton, Cambridge University Press, 1995, 599pp

I came across this book in a footnote in John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man by Carl Trueman (p. 18 n. 44 - reviewed here). Trueman commended Milton's detailed study of Protestant attitudes towards Roman Catholicism in the period before Owen's public ministry. When invited to give a paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome at this year's Westminster Conference I thought I had better get hold of Catholic and Reformed for some background reading. Some background reading! Milton has carefully researched the voluminous anti-Roman writings published in England during 1600-1640. Part I of the book is devoted to the controversy with Rome.

Anti-Catholicism was not the preserve of hot headed Puritan radicals. There was a broad consensus amongst English Protestant divines that the Roman Catholic Church was a corrupt church and that the Pope was the Antichrist. Establishment figures such as Archbishop Abbot were as virulently anti-Catholic as Puritans like William Perkins. However there were differences of nuance amongst Protestant polemicists and some issues required careful handling. Was the Roman Catholic Church in any sense a true Church? What was the status of the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation? Was there enough residual truth in Roman Catholicism for at least some Catholics to be saved? Milton gives attention to all these matters and more.

The basic anti-Catholic consensus was shattered by Archbishop William Laud and those who agreed with his views. For Laud the main enemy was not so much Rome, as the 'enemy within' in the shape of the Puritans. Laudians acknowledged that there were serious errors in the Roman Catholic system, but they regarded Rome as a member of the true Catholic Church. Under Laud's tenure identification of the Pope as the Antichrist was discouraged and robust anti-Catholic polemics were suppressed in favour of a more irenic approach. Some Laudians such as Richard Montagu even hoped for reunion with Rome and worked towards that end.

In Part II Milton gives attention to the Reformed Churches, discussing the relationship between English and Continental Protestantism. While there was a good deal of confessional harmony between English Protestants and their European cousins, there were also tensions and difficulties. For a start Protestantism was divided between Lutherans and the Reformed, the two parties eyeing one another suspiciously. To make matters worse, Lutheran dislike of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination seemed suspiciously similar to the Arminianism that was vexing the Reformed Churches in the early 1600's. The Church of England was moderately Calvinistic rather than Lutheran in its confession, but it differed from the European Reformed Churches on the issue of Presbyterianism. An earlier generation of Anglican leaders regarded episcopalian church government as a 'thing indifferent' that should not be allowed to disrupt harmonious relations between English and European Calvinists. But when Laud and his followers began to assert the 'divine right' of episcopacy, casting doubt on the validity of Presbyterian orders, the fragile united front began to break down. The Laudian doctrine of "No bishop, no church!" was hardly calculated to further the cause of Protestant unity. Indeed, with his rigid episcopalianism and dislike of Calvinistic theology, Laud actively distanced the Church of England from the European Reformed Churches. European Presbyterians seemed too much like those pesky homegrown Puritans for his liking.

What might be the relevance of all this for Evangelicals today? For one thing, Milton's work helps to provide a welcome historical perspective on current Evangelical engagement with Roman Catholicism under the auspices of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Were our Protestant forefathers right to be so hostile to Roman Catholic teaching? Have the issues that divided Protestants and Roman Catholics in the sixteenth century such as papal authority, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, and purgatory really been resolved? I think not. But that is not the only thing that strikes me. Another is the bitter divisions within Protestantism which left the movement badly fragmented and therefore weakened. Serious and irreconcilable differences emerged between Lutherans and the Reformed. The rise of Arminianism shattered the unity of the Reformed Churches. The divisive Laudian assertion of the 'divine right' of episcopacy is another case in point. Regrettably, even Protestants who were in basic agreement on theological issues managed to fall out over finer points of doctrine and church polity.

Now, I'm not trying to argue for the maintenance of pan-Evangelical Protestant unity at any price. The 'lowest common denominator' approach of modern day ecumenism is not one we should adopt at the expense of our Reformed confessional integrity. But still the challenge remains; how can we hold to our cherished distinctives as Reformed Baptists, Westminster Standard Presbyterians, Savoy Declaration Independents, or Calvinistic Episcopalians and yet give expression to our essential unity in the gospel? What more can be done to encourage confessionally Reformed Churches and Church groupings to affiliate and work together for the sake of the Kingdom? Yes, we still need to face up to enemies without such as Rome and theological liberalism. We also have to combat numerous enemies within what passes for Evangelicalism today. Take open theists and those who deny penal substitutionary atonement as a couple of examples. But in our tendency to fragment over secondary issues we don't exactly do ourselves any favours. We cantankerous Calvinists don't always have to be our own worst enemies, now do we?

Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI by Tracey Rowland

Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI,
Tracey Rowland, Oxford University Press, 2009, 214pp

Regular readers of this blog won't be surprised to learn that I disagree with quite a few aspects of Ratzinger's theology. I mean, is the pope a Catholic? And hey, many members of the Roman Catholic Church aren't exactly enthusiastic about the stance taken by the current pope. He is often depicted as a brutalist reactionary bent on undoing the more 'enlightened and open' policies of Vatican II. When Ratzinger succeeded Pope John Paul II one American Roman Catholic complained, it "is like electing Rumsfeld after George Bush" (see here). With that in mind you might think that a sympathetic treatment of Ratzinger's theology would be hard to find. But this is exactly what Tracey Rowland attempts to offer in this book, where she gives an insightful account of some of the key themes in pope Benedict XVI's teaching.

She begins by situating Ratzinger among contemporary Roman Catholic theologians. According to one reading of the pope's theological trajectory he set out as something of a radical, but horrified by the changes instigated by Vatican II he became an increasingly reactionary and authoritarian figure. Rowland argues that this is an overly simplistic reading of Ratzinger's theological development. What he has sought is not in fact a return to the 'glory days' of pre-conciliar Catholicism. Ratzinger was critical of the 'Baroque Thomism' that characterised the thinking of many Roman Catholic theologians in the first half of the 20th century. He especially disliked their dualistic understanding of the relationship between nature and grace, arguing that they had bought into the Kantian dichotomy between the spiritual and the natural worlds. Influenced by Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, Ratzinger preferred a more more Augustinian model in which nature is perfected by grace. It is this basic Augustinian stance that separates him from radicals like Hans Kung and Karl Rahner. In Rahner's thought grace is virtually collapsed into nature to the extent that a person may be an 'anonymous Christian' simply by the light of nature without ever having encountered the gracious revelation of God in Christ.

Ratzinger has devoted the whole of his career to one main aim. Both in his previous role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now as pope he has sought to to stop the Roman Catholic Church accommodating itself to the modern world with its rationalistic mindset. This is what makes him wary of the changes implemented in the wake of Vatican II. He argues that adopting the agenda of the Enlightenment is destructive of the Christian faith, "if the Church were to accommodate herself to the world in any way that would entail a turning from the Cross, that would not lead to a renewal of the Church, but only to her death." His predecessor pope John Paul II endeavoured to forge points of contact with the modern world, attending pop concerts and investing the Enlightenment slogans like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" with fresh Christian meaning. But Ratzinger is having none of it, preferring the purity of the Latin Mass over liturgical innovations in the name of 'relevance'.

This critique of Enlightenment rationalism does not entail a rejection of reason itself and the fruits of reason in the scientific process. But human reason on its own is not sufficient. Ratzinger argues that reason needs to be enlightened by the logos of God, Jesus Christ if it is not to descend into the nihilistic atheism and mindless consumerism that features so strongly in contemporary European society. Evangelical Protestant will agree with with many of the points made in the chapter on Modernity and the Politics of the West. Further thoughtful reflections on modernity and the Church are found in the two appendices with which the book concludes, The Subiaco Address and the infamous Regensburg Address, which sparked off riots in the Muslim world.

However, before we get too exited, Ratzinger's solution to the problem of rampant secularism in the West is not a recovery of biblical gospel. He commends the example of Benedict of Norcia who fled from the wicked world to found a monastery at Monte Casino (p. 165). So, the current pope's prescription for the church in the face of the challenge of modernity is akin to Hamlet's advice to Ophelia, "get thee to a nunnery". I can't see how that might help. The Church has been not been called to withdraw from the world but to proclaim the good news of Jesus to the nations. Doing so entails faithfulness to the gospel revealed in Holy Scripture and meaningful engagement with the contemporary world. Which is why the Reformers translated the Bible into the language of the people and worshipped God in the vernacular. At its best Evangelical Protestantism has succeeded in being both gospel-centred and missional. Also, Evangelicals such as William Wilberforce and Lord Shatesbury have been at the forefront of social reform, bringing Christian values to bear upon public life.

Rowland is more interested in placing Ratzinger's faith in the context of Roman Catholic teaching than in entering into dialogue with Evangelical Protestant theology. References to Protestant thought are brief and rather dismissive. The scholar is quick to distance Ratzinger's appreciation of Augustine from the Calvinistic understanding of the great Church Father. However, it seems that Ratzinger is sensitive to the Protestant charge that Roman Catholic theology is often far too philosophical and distanced from Holy Scripture. He offers a rich, trinitarian account of revelation in which revelation is not so much about information as the transformation of the person in the life of the Trinity (p. 51). So far so good. But this does not mean that the current pope has jettisoned papal infallibility for the sake of sola scriptura. Roman Catholic Tradition remains on a par with the Bible and the faithful are still subject to the authoritative Magisterium of the Church.

Once more along Augustinian lines, Ratzinger wishes to shift Roman Catholic piety away from an overwhelming emphasis on duty and meritorious good works. He rightly sees this as little more than Pelagian moralism. Instead he proposes a renewed focus on the grace of God communicated to the sinner in a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Ratzinger insists that the antidote to 'Christian Pharisaism' is found in 1 John 4:16. This sounds like music to the Calvinist's ears, until we read that the Benedict XVI's prescription for moving beyond moralism to the love and grace of God is a rekindling of devotion to the cult of the Sacred Heart. Isn't this the problem with the Roman Catholic Church? We agree on so much, the Trinity, the Person of Christ, pro-marriage and pro-life biblical ethics, but where did all this other stuff come from? We cannot swallow the Roman Catholic additions to the biblical account of salvation in Christ that end up negating the gospel of sovereign grace. We reject Roman Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus for the sake of devotion to our risen Lord himself.

The current pope is intent on not allowing the Church he leads to sell its birthright for a mess of Enlightenment pottage. But what the Roman Catholic Church needs to do is not simply react against the modern world, but reform its doctrines and practices in the light of Scripture. Peter Jones of Westminster Seminary California met Ratzinger at the Vatican when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He gave him the gift of a specially bound copy of the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (see here). Calvin was a consistent Augustinian in a way that Ratzinger is not. His was utterly gripped by the Church Father's biblical vision of salvation by grace alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone. I don't know whether Ratzinger has ever taken the time to read the Institutes, but if he did and took the Reformer's words to heart, it would have a powerful and transforming effect on his faith. In other words, Benedict XVI's theology could do with a good dose of Calvinism.

John Owen's anti-Roman writings

John Owen’s anti-Roman writings may be found in Volume 14 of his Works. The majority of that volume is taken up with Admanidversions on Fiat Lux and its sequel, Vindication of the Admanidversions on Fiat Lux. Also there is a shorter piece, The Church of Rome no Safe Guide. In the Admanidversions Owen engages in controversy with John Vincent Cane, a Franciscan Friar. In 1661 Cane published his Fiat Lux. It was an attempt to take advantage of the recent upheavals in Protestant Britain in order to try and win the country back to Rome. His argument ran something like this: “Just look at what has happened to your once peaceful land since leaving the Roman Catholic fold. Protestant Christians have divided into mutually hostile camps. The nation has been torn apart by religious unrest, civil war, revolution and regicide. Come back to Rome and all will be well. You know it makes sense.”

The restoration of the monarchy, with Charles II returning to England in 1660 did not succeed in healing old wounds. In the aftermath of the Civil War there were bitter recriminations for the Puritans whose political ambitions died with Oliver Cromwell. The newly installed pro-king, pro-Church of England authorities set about mercilessly persecuting their Puritan fellow Protestants. Cane chose his time well. The opportunity seemed right for his Roman propaganda.

In a sense, Cane’s Fiat Lux was the British equivalent to Cardinal Sadoleto’s Letter to Geneva. Sadoleto sought to exploit the troubles and tensions in Geneva that led to banishment of Calvin to woo the city back to Rome. Famously the exiled Calvin answered the Cardinal on behalf of Protestant Geneva (see here). But who was to answer John Vincent Cane? That is where John Owen comes in. Somewhat ironically the Restoration authorities appealed to a man from the vanquished Puritan Party to help combat the Franciscan Friar’s propaganda. Owen was leader of the Independents, chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and former Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University during the Commonwealth period. The virulently anti-Puritan Lord Chancellor Lord Clarendon sent Owen a copy of Cane’s Fiat Lux, requesting that he answer it on behalf of Protestant Britain.

Owen manfully rose to the challenge. Having said that, the veteran Puritan minister was no unthinking anti-Roman bigot. In his interaction with Cane, Owen does not adopt the stance of an angry "hot Prot" polemicist, gleefully exposing Romish errors almost for the fun of it. His tone is calm and reasoned as he scrutinises Roman doctrine in the light of Scripture. On occasion the great divine even permits himself a little ironic humour. Remarking on this William Goold, editor of Owen’s Works writes in a Prefatory Note to the Vindication, “he reminds us in his humour of the cumbrous gambols of the whale.” (p. 175).

If you will forgive the mixed metaphors, in his dealings with Cane, Owen resembles an indulgent cat toying with an overconfident mouse. But this “cat” has sharp teeth and pointed claws. When roused the old Puritan could be devastatingly incisive in dealing with his opponent’s weak arguments. For example, he mocks the claim that the Rome has always been doctrinally consistent, never once falling into error, summarising Cane as saying, "The Roman church did never at any time adhere to any opinion, but what the Roman church at the time adhered to". Well that's alright then!

Owen’s Admanidversions and the Vindication do not take the form of an orderly and systematic critique of Roman Catholic teaching. Rather, Owen let his opponent set the agenda and responded to Cane’s points as they occurred in the Fait Lux. But his works are no less valuable for all that. Contemporary Evangelical can sometimes be a little naive when it comes to dialogue with Roman Catholics. Witness the ground conceded in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together joint-declarations, (see here for the latest statement on Mary). We could benefit from Owen's acute theological analysis of the differences between Evangelical Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church.