Reformation Day – and What Led Me To Back to Catholicism

The Catholic Thing ^ | 10/28/11 | Francis J. Beckwith

[markomalley]

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.

[D-fendr]

How do you guys know when you did enough good works? Or good enough ones?

If I view myself, others and God in this manner, I'm on a very wrong track.

It would be like marrying for money.

[D-fendr]

I should add that I believe the same question (with the same response) could be asked:

How do you guys know when you believed enough? Or good enough beliefs?

If our relationship with others and God is based on receiving our own reward, we do not know love and have seriously violated the teaching of our Lord.

[metmom]

If our relationship with others and God is based on receiving our own reward, we do not know love and have seriously violated the teaching of our Lord.

*IF*...

1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

If our relationship with others and God is based on receiving our own reward, we do not know love and have seriously violated the teaching of our Lord.

Our relationship with God is based on Him doing it all for us except the choice to believe. He placed us where we were most likely to turn to Him. He calls us, enlightens us, died for us, doing Himself what we are incapable of doing for ourselves, sustains us, seals us, promises us. He is faithful even when we are faithless because He cannot deny Himself. The only thing He won't do is override our will and force salvation on us. God owes us nothing. WE owe Him everything. But your assumption that anyone is hanging their submission to and love for God over his head as a bargaining chip is just......unbelievable....

John 6:35-40 35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Here is an interesting link I stumbled on regarding the topic of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Acts 17:24-31 24“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - http://www.answers.org/bible/blasphemy.html

[MarkBsnr]

Neither do we know them. So, as far as it being us merely talking about spirituality and not manifesting it, we could say the same thing about them. Didn't Jesus say something about when we judge another we are judged by the same measure?

When they by direct and indirect means show that they say one thing and do the opposite, that is not my judgement.

[MarkBsnr]

The claim was that satan counterfeits every work of God. That claim was challenged, and countered with only fluff.

Can you think of any area where he hasn't?

I am not as imaginative as satan, but I was looking for Scriptural support of that statement. As is the case over the few hundred posts, asking for Scriptural support for positions and finding out what Protestant practices actually are, I find that the level of disingenous has risen considerably.

I make the statement that Protestants mouth the phrase regarding every knee shall bow and find that they don't actually do it. When called on it, we have the several hundred posts full of indignation and some Scripture which does not address the actual practices of the Protestants in question.

It is sad to have one's suspicions confirmed to such a great level of concurrence by those folks who spend so much effort to try to deny it.

The divergence from Christianity, largely tied to the results of the Reformation, have resulted in entire groups who are actually no more Christian than a tribe of Tagalog or a colony of meerkats, but who claim the title of being more Christian than any other group.

[MarkBsnr]

Nobody in the NT ever referred to themselves as *bishops*. Paul rightly called himself an apostle.

Ac 11:30 14:23 15:02 16:04 20:17; Ac 20:28; Php 1:1 (1Ti 3:1,12), 1Ti 5:17-22. (Titus 1:5), (Titus 1:7) etc.

The NT used the term bishop and the term overseer interchangeably - especially Paul.

I love the actual meaning of the NT, not the derived meaning that one may assume upon arising each morning, or during a long session down at the pub.

[metmom]

Galatians 5:22-23 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Matthew 7:21-23 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Religiosity is absolutely the WRONG criteria on which to judge someone, be it demonstrations of works or gifts. Jesus Himself says that many will appeal to their religious works and yet were never known by Him.

How then, can any person dare to use that as a legitimate basis on which to determine a person's level of commitment to Christ or their spiritual maturity?

Would that be an intentional or unintentional sin?

The Pharisees did all the right religious things and were sounded rebuked and condemned by Jesus. Color me singularly unimpressed by a person's outward display of religious activity, praying in public, kneeling, bowing, giving, church attendance, whatever....

[D-fendr]

hanging their submission to and love for God over his head as a bargaining chip

Well that would be foolish also. What I actually said was:

>>based on receiving our own reward…

and

>>>Like marrying for money.

I think "believe to receive" is another phrase that would apply.

[Iscool]

I’ll rephrase, Should they be accepted as part of the original writing of Mark?

It is difficult to understand why Critical text supports are so enamored with the removal of Mark 16:9-20 from the Word of God. As seen above, the external evidence from the Greek witness is strongly in favor of their retention. The witness of other ancient versions strongly sides with this passage. Even the internal evidence, so much relied upon to support failed Critical arguments from the external, turns out to be very unconvincing. Yet, Critical text supporters continue to count the exclusion of Mark 16:9-20 as the "scholarly" position to take - any other makes you an uneducated bumpkin or a purposeful obscurant. In their attitudes and methodology, many of these Critics (and not just on this single issue) are very much like the evolutionists. Evolutionists will claim that their theory is supported by "mountains of scientific evidence," yet they cannot produce a single piece of this evidence which will stand up to the test of reasoned and scientific inquiry. Further, practically the entire abiogenetic foundation of evolutionary theory of origins rests upon arguments which can be debunked by appeal to knowledge gained from undergraduate science courses. Likewise, Critical text supporters will cite "the scholars" and "mountains of evidence" to support their positions, but will inevitably fall back onto some version of the less-than-cogent "oldest is best" argument, and will usually completely disregard other evidences (such as patristic quotations, etc.) which are destructive to their reconstructions.

Regardless, the Christian who desires the entire council of God need not fear that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong there. When all the Critical text supporters can offer are circular reasoning and partial evidences spun to their satisfaction, there is really no reason for the practical Christian to give much credence to their arguments.

From here...

But aside from the so-called scholarly evidence, this debate (and others) takes us to the word of God itself...

God tells us that he magnifies his word above even his name...God tells us that his words are a lamp onto our feet and a light onto our paths...God tells us that he will preserves his words forever...

I suppose one can chose to believe that we have a book that contains some of God words...That may be a good argument to use if one wanted to come up with a system where a supposed Holy Tradition was put in place by the claim of Apostolic successors of the very Apostles themselves...Removing any authority from the scriptures and transferring it to that group that makes the claims...

I on the other hand, can do nothing but believe God...He did preserve His words...I have those words that God preserved...If I didn't have those words, not only is God a liar, but I don't confidently have any of His words...

Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

There is no doubt in my mind that the entirety of Mark 16 belongs in the scriptures...

[Iscool]

That’s what gives me the most trouble when people use that passage; the cherry picking.

Exactly...If the Catholics see a portion of that verse as a proof text for their existence, and they do, they have to take it all, baggage and all...

[count-your-change]

“The NT used the term bishop and the term overseer interchangeably - especially Paul”

Not quite. The NT Greek used the term “episkopous” (or the appropriate form), which has the sense of an overseer and the modern English “bishop” is derived from that.

While the Greek “presbyterous” (or the appropriate form) is used to refer a broader group, “older man” or “elder”, particularly in a spiritual sense.

In the instances you cite,
Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:02, 16:04, 20:17, 1 Tim. 5:17,19, Titus 1:5 the term “presbyterous” reads in the Greek and the NAB transliterates it as “presbyter”.

Acts 20:28 and Phil. 1:1 read “episkopous” in the Greek and are translated s “overseer” in the NAB.

1 Tim. 3:1 and Titus 1:7 read “episkopous” in the Greek and the NAB translates it as “bishop”.

I can think of no reason for this inconsistency of translation in the NAB unless it is to lend support for the use of the title “Bishop”.

So it is not Paul but the translators who interchange these terms.

[Jvette]

***Neither sanctioned nor approved by Jesus****

That is a matter of opinion.

Unless, there is something I don’t know about regarding who has the authority to speak for Jesus.

[Jvette]

Mother of God, Jesus is God
Immaculate Conception, Saved from sin in order to carry Jesus
Queen of Heaven, Jesus is the King of Kings, She is His Mother
Assumption, Taken to heaven by her Son

There is no attribute, honor or title for Mary that came about without first identifying and accepting who her SON is.

***Catholics have replaced Jesus with Mary in much of their worship***

Another opinion. It simply is not true for the Church as a whole and Catholics as individuals.

[count-your-change]

I’ve read the same thing as what is provided at the link in your post.
What evolution and denigrating someones education has to do with the question I’m not sure.

The longer ending is not without support in manuscripts but then neither is the shorter ending and hence most translations will include both with notes and brackets.

Which ending or neither one accepts is up to the individual but they should be aware of the evidence that they are not.

[metmom]

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

God made salvation simple and easy that anyone, anywhere, at any age could do it.

The Catholic church, along with many others, has overly complicated it, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' day complicated the Law.

Salvation is by faith, by being born again....

John 3:14-18 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

All we do is believe and it's ours.

[Iscool]

"Jesus picked Paul to reveal the new Gospel of Grace..."

There, in a nutshell, is the chasm between Christians and some of the fringe Paulian cults who all but openly profess that Paul, not Jesus, is their savior. Substitute the name Mary for Paul and you have what they repeatedly accuse Catholics of.

No, there in the nutshell are you nuts...

You have been shown the verses more times than I can count...The apparent fact that you don't have a clue what to do with the verses is no ones problem but yours...

Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Act 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Are these verses (and many, many others like them) blackened out in your Catholic bibles??? Or you just don't bother with the bibles anyway???

Act 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

It's all there...Read it and see what God says about it...

[Iscool]

And we know to whom He gave the keys...

And you still think Peter is standing up there with one hand on a pad-lock and the other on the key in his pocket...My, My, My.....

[Iscool]

Is your reading comprehension really that bad? Or are you really that staggeringly ignorant of Scripture?

Taking any bets???

[metmom]

LOL!! No. The answer is obvious. I don’t expect any takers.

[Iscool]

No one desires to discredit anything. After all, it was OUR bishops and clergy that established the canon of scripture in the first place. PROTESTANTS love to take OUR Bible, and spout their interpretation of it, yet won’t accept anything else, all in the name of POPERY PHOBIA!!!

Did you bother to give God a copy so he could see what you wrote about him???