Reformation Day – and What Led Me To Back to Catholicism

October 31 is only three days away. For Protestants, it is Reformation Day, the date in 1517 on which Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to that famous door in Wittenberg, Germany. Since I returned to the Catholic Church in April 2007, each year the commemoration has become a time of reflection about my own journey and the puzzles that led me back to the Church of my youth.

One of those puzzles was the relationship between the Church, Tradition, and the canon of Scripture. As a Protestant, I claimed to reject the normative role that Tradition plays in the development of Christian doctrine. But at times I seemed to rely on it. For example, on the content of the biblical canon – whether the Old Testament includes the deuterocanonical books (or “Apocrypha”), as the Catholic Church holds and Protestantism rejects. I would appeal to the exclusion of these books as canonical by the Jewish Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90-100) as well as doubts about those books raised by St. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, and a few other Church Fathers.

My reasoning, however, was extra-biblical. For it appealed to an authoritative leadership that has the power to recognize and certify books as canonical that were subsequently recognized as such by certain Fathers embedded in a tradition that, as a Protestant, I thought more authoritative than the tradition that certified what has come to be known as the Catholic canon. This latter tradition, rejected by Protestants, includes St. Augustine as well as the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the Fourth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419), and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1441).

But if, according to my Protestant self, a Jewish council and a few Church Fathers are the grounds on which I am justified in saying what is the proper scope of the Old Testament canon, then what of New Testament canonicity? So, ironically, given my Protestant understanding of ecclesiology, then the sort of authority and tradition that apparently provided me warrant to exclude the deuterocanonical books from Scripture – binding magisterial authority with historical continuity – is missing from the Church during the development of New Testament canonicity.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, maintains that this magisterial authority was in fact present in the early Church and thus gave its leadership the power to recognize and fix the New Testament canon. So, ironically, the Protestant case for a deuterocanonical-absent Old Testament canon depends on Catholic intuitions about a tradition of magisterial authority.

This led to two other tensions. First, in defense of the Protestant Old Testament canon, I argued, as noted above, that although some of the Church’s leading theologians and several regional councils accepted what is known today as the Catholic canon, others disagreed and embraced what is known today as the Protestant canon. It soon became clear to me that this did not help my case, since by employing this argumentative strategy, I conceded the central point of Catholicism: the Church is logically prior to the Scriptures. That is, if the Church, until the Council of Florence’s ecumenical declaration in 1441, can live with a certain degree of ambiguity about the content of the Old Testament canon, that means that sola scriptura was never a fundamental principle of authentic Christianity.

After all, if Scripture alone applies to the Bible as a whole, then we cannot know to which particular collection of books this principle applies until the Bible’s content is settled. Thus, to concede an officially unsettled canon for Christianity’s first fifteen centuries seems to make the Catholic argument that sola scriptura was a sixteenth-century invention and, therefore, not an essential Christian doctrine.

Second, because the list of canonical books is itself not found in Scripture – as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s apostles – any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-biblical theological knowledge. Take, for example, a portion of the revised and expanded Evangelical Theological Society statement of faith suggested (and eventually rejected by the membership) by two ETS members following my return to the Catholic Church. It states that, “this written word of God consists of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments and is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behavior.”

But the belief that the Bible consists only of sixty-six books is not a claim of Scripture, since one cannot find the list in it, but a claim about Scripture as a whole. That is, the whole has a property – i.e., “consisting of sixty-six books,” – that is not found in any of the parts. In other words, if the sixty-six books are the supreme authority on matters of belief, and the number of books is a belief, and one cannot find that belief in any of the books, then the belief that Scripture consists of sixty-six particular books is an extra-biblical belief, an item of theological knowledge that is prima facie non-biblical.

For the Catholic, this is not a problem, since the Bible is the book of the Church, and thus there is an organic unity between the fixing of the canon and the development of doctrine and Christian practice.

Although I am forever indebted to my Evangelical brethren for instilling and nurturing in me a deep love of Scripture, it was that love that eventually led me to the Church that had the authority to distinguish Scripture from other things.

“No one is contending that Peter didn’t preach various places. Why the obfuscation? The RCC contends that Peter was the first Pope but it’s been proven otherwise”

Where does your source say that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome? They sll say that he was a bishop, but none of them say that he was first.

All the lists of the ‘Bishops of Rome’, place Peter first.

The Catholic church contends that the first Bishop of Rome was St. Peter.

You have already stated (erroneously), that the Catholic church teaches that the Church began at Rome. False. The Church began at Jerusalem, when Jesus proclaimed the 12, and gave them the Great Commission. Then at Pentecost was the first public appearance of the Church, to the people at Jerusalem.

The reason that the Catholic church teaches that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, is not because he was ordained the Bishop of Rome. Peter was given the authority that he held over the Church (as you see he is listed first), by Jesus Christ. This authority extends everywhere, not just Rome. He, and his office predates that of the Church at Rome.

Why would Hippolytus advance the lesser claim, but still proclaim that Peter was the first among the apostles, (and of the Church as a whole), by listing him first? Why did you fail to mention him at all in your citation?

He lists Paul as first, and foremost as an Apostle. Which is the right way of looking at it. He was Bishop of Rome, secondly. If you want to prove that Paul was not first, then you have to cite a list of the Bishops of Rome that does not list him first. Good luck.

Why hide that Paul was first among the Apostles?

• There is actually very little proof that Peter was even in Rome other then at his death. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans in Romans 16: 1-15. He mentions everyone of note but nothing about or to Peter. Not only that, but in Romans Paul is giving instructions in the faith if Peter was already the Bishop of Rome. If Catholics are right Peter would have been Paul’s superior. Yet Paul never mentions him in his letter to the church at Rome and gives them instructions in the faith. If Peter had been in Rome as it’s Bishop there certainly would have been mention and there would have been no need to “go over his bosses head” and give instruction in the faith.

There is no record in the Bible or elsewhere, of Peter issuing instructions to the diocese of Rome. What an amazing oversight by a supposedly infallible commander-in-chief! In addition to that, Paul wrote to Timothy from Rome.

2 Timothy 4:9-12 - "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus."

Where was Peter the supposed Bishop of Rome? Again in 2 Timothy Paul is giving instructions to Timothy. If Peter was the Supreme Pontiff of Rome why is Paul writing from Rome with no mention of Peter?

Then there is Irenaeus.

Irenaeus: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus, was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth (SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3)

Did you notice that it was Paul who made mention of Linus, not Peter? With no indication of Peter ever being in Rome nor any indication that Peter in fact was the head of the Apostles there can be no legitimate claim that Peter was the first Pope or that the RC was built on Peter.

And then one more embarrassment for the RCC. In the 1950s Roman Catholic archaeologists discovered a tomb in Jerusalem containing an ossuary—a bone box used in first-century Jewish burials—that bore the engraved name “Simon Bar Jona” (a name by which the apostle Peter is known in the Gospels).

The RCC has erroneously interpreted one verse of scripture to try to wrest control of Christ’s church and then tried to manipulate scripture for hundreds of years until those interpreting from the original languages found gross errors in the RCC manuscripts which precipitated the Reformation.

>> All the lists of the ‘Bishops of Rome’, place Peter first.<<

I have yet to see, other then the current RCC, made that claim. None of the Apostles writings and none of the very early church fathers show that.

>> Peter was given the authority that he held over the Church (as you see he is listed first), by Jesus Christ. This authority extends everywhere, not just Rome.<<

That’s nonsense. Jesus was talking about God the Father as the Rock.

>> Why would Hippolytus advance the lesser claim, but still proclaim that Peter was the first among the apostles, (and of the Church as a whole), by listing him first? Why did you fail to mention him at all in your citation?<<

How does listing someone first make them the head? It doesn’t. Besides, all the Apostles are listed in the 12, then in his list of Bishops the Apostles who were Bishops are mentioned again but no mention of Peter.

>> He was Bishop of Rome, secondly.<<

So you claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans?

>> If you want to prove that Paul was not first, then you have to cite a list of the Bishops of Rome that does not list him first.<<

I think you meant Peter.

I haven’t found a list the puts him as Bishop of Rome. I find some that claim he preached in Italy but none that even claim he preached in Rome. Paul would surely have mentioned him when writing to Rome and didn’t.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)

“I have yet to see, other then the current RCC, made that claim. None of the Apostles writings and none of the very early church fathers show that.”

Show me a list with the bishop of Rome with Linus first. Have at it.

“That’s nonsense. Jesus was talking about God the Father as the Rock.”

Then you can explain to me why Hippolytus put Apostle Peter first among the Apostles. Good luck.

“How does listing someone first make them the head?”

It’s an argument for primacy. Right there in the list. Peter comes first.

“Besides, all the Apostles are listed in the 12, then in his list of Bishops the Apostles who were Bishops are mentioned again but no mention of Peter.”

That’s because he’s listing Apostles first, and bishops second. From your dishonest citation, we would never have figured this out. Going back to the source shows us that he’s giving Peter primacy as the first among the Apostles. Which explains why he’s not on the bishop list, because he’s already listed as an apostle.

“So you claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans?”

I claim that Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Show me a list with Linus as first.

“Paul would surely have mentioned him when writing to Rome and didn’t.”

Zzz, argument from silence.

“”There is actually very little proof that Peter was even in Rome “”

Complete nonsense ,even protestant scholars don’t agree with you

New Advent does a good job of laying out all of the ancient manuscript evidence that Peter was in Rome and died in Rome. These men are the same men who recognized that the writings of Paul and Peter were from God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV

If you believe this is biased, also check out this information from a “Church of YEHOVAH” site.
http://hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

Here is some information compiled on the subject matter...I didn’t include the whole article, but this conclusion is clear - that Peter did die in Rome.

Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states “that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter’s visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul” (New York, 1927. P. 155.).

Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:

The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter’s death, and the repository of his relics. — St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:

Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter’s martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr’s death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO’S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. — Article, “Peter.”

John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence “St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN” (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).

As author James Hardy Ropes states:

The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter’s death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The “trophies” of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. — The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.

The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.

It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity — until AFTER the Reformation. Don’t you think that’s odd? Don’t you think SOMEONE would have seized upon this claim of Rome, and used it as a point of contention if there were ANY doubt at all regarding its validity? Don’t you think the eastern churches would have gotten UNLIMITED PROPAGANDA MILEAGE out of this claim if it were not true? For centuries the eastern churches were in almost CONSTANT conflict with Rome over Easter, the Sabbath, and many other doctrinal issues. If they could have seized upon Rome’s claim that Peter had worked and died there, they SURELY would have used this against the Roman church! But they didn’t. WHY? Because there was ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about Rome being the site of Peter’s death!

From William McBirnie:

We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. — The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. 1973. P. 64.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that “the evidence for his [Peter’s] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers” (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).

George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter’s] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter’s conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. — London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.

Jerome writes as follows: “Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, IN THE 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS GOES TO ROME TO OPPOSE SIMON MAGUS and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the LAST YEAR OF NERO, that is the 14th.” Now here amidst a CERTAIN CONFUSION...a definite date is given for Peter’s FIRST ARRIVAL IN ROME, and, be it noted, it is the date of his escape from Herod Agrippa’s persecution and his disappearance from the narrative of the Acts. — London. 1913. Pp. 50-51. According to George Edmundson, in his work The Church in Rome in the 1st Century:

Jerome claims the 14th year of Nero’s reign was his last, and history records Nero died in June of 68, then, using the reckoning of Jerome, the 2nd year of Claudius must have been 43 A.D. This AGREES, as Mr. Edmundson noted, with the date of Peter’s imprisonment and escape under Herod, and agrees with the historical dates for the reign of Claudius.
Chronologers agree that Herod died in 44 A.D.; and the Book of Acts shows that after Peter’s escape, Herod went to Caesarea where he spent some time in negotiations with envoys from Tyre and other Phoenician cities before his death. This, coupled with the UNIVERSAL GREEK TRADITION that the apostles did not leave the Syro-Palestinian region UNTIL THE END OF 12 YEARS MINISTRY, fits in well with the dating of Eusebius and Jerome.

I think the evidence is quite clear, from those men who were there, that Peter did die in Rome. I see no reason to doubt the universal agreement of the first Christian writers who all say Peter was in Rome and eventually died in Rome. It is only after the Reformation that we begin to see any “doubt” of that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.