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.

>>I suspect that much of your knowledge is suspect.<<

Well, let’s start.

Does the CC teach that Mary is the queen of heaven?
Does the CC teach that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven?
Does the CC teach that speaking with those who have passed from this life other than Jesus is ok?
Does the CC teach that formally belonging to the RCC is prerequisite for salvation?
Does the CC teach that carrying those staffs, cups, monstrance etc with the symbols of pagan religions is ok?

Any of those and I’m out. K?

I guess I'm to work this claim until I find a few gold flecks in the pan.

The salient comments appears to be that both “epikopoi” and “presbyters” were priests and that the ability to appoint, ordain, priests was passed down by virtue of Christ's commission.

Whatever the Vatican II explanations of what the priesthood was, the role spoken of by Christ, John, and Peter was not just of a priesthood but of king/priest and as Paul pointed out at 1 Cor., chapter 4, some wanted to start exercising that future authority and rule right then.

The evidence of the Scriptures is that no one group of Christians was set apart from their brothers as a class of priests. So that would mean there was no office of priest to be passed down by any means and that the office within the Christian church was a “novelty”, an invention.

All this could have been avoided if the question about the bowing of the knee had been answered instead of returning fire with a fusillade of angry fluff. By the way, the question has still not been answered. The obvious conclusion is that it will not be for a very good reason.

Seeing as how this tangent started nearly one week ago, why don't we take a trip down memory lane and see what this so-called "question" actually was. Post #1016 on this thread on Sunday, November 6, You said:

My point is that so many who prate the verse 'that every knee will bow' actually never do it. You give me the OT; I give you Jesus. It is a common exchange that I have observed with many of my Protestant colleagues. Of course I stand in prayer. And I pray a decade of the Rosary in the morning while driving to work, so I am sitting at that point.

How many Protestants speak about prayer and never actually do it other than rambling stream of consciousness prattle at some public or semi public affair?

So, is your question really how many "Protestants" talk about prayer and never "actually" do it? Or, is it how many pray in a certain position rather than another? If you're honest, you will see that you started down the path of comparing the prayer habits of one against another, presuming your "side" was doing the true "bowing" of the knee since kneeling in your church is done. This argument has been going on a whole week, and I believe the REAL reason is because you got caught misinterpreting a verse - the one that says "every knee will bow" - and, rather than admit what matters to God is what is in the heart, you held on to the idea of one form of prayer posture being superior to another. Why don't YOU admit the "fusillade of angry fluff" was a diversionary tactic of your own to save face? The "obvious conclusion" IS obvious - or it SHOULD be!

Works of the Law are a tad different from those required by the Judge. Again, the Commandments of Christ are key to understanding this.

A tad, but the only real difference is a matter of degree. Jesus didn't replace the Law, He set the bar for keeping it MUCH higher. He sets a much higher standard than the Law because He reveals that it's what's in the heart that counts, not just the actions. The Law didn't address that.

So good luck trying to keep what Jesus required of us if you can't keep the Law in the OT, the Ten commandments to start with, to make it easy.

Let us know when you've got those down.

Neither do Catholics. However the Council of Nicea obviously felt there was sufficient reason to include them.....COULD IT BE THE HOLY SPIRIT Isn’t THAT SPECIAL!!!

Perhaps you would like to share with us your proof that the Council of Nicea addressed or confirmed a Canon of Scripture that included the "Apocryphal" or "Deuterocanonical" books. The references I have read make NO mention of this issue at all being discussed in that council that happened in 325 A.D. In fact, several I have read so far state that this council was convened primarily to settle the Arian controversy and secondarily the controversy over the question of Easter/Resurrection observance. Here is a link for you that may help in your understanding of what that council did or did not accomplish http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm.

Submission to Christ.

Amen. That is the operative submission: to Christ.

Mortal substitutes are broken cisterns that can hold no water.

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. - Jer 2:13

And again,

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) - John 7:38-39

And again,

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. - John 4:10

And again,

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. – John 1:33

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? – Acts 11:15-17

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. - I Cor 12:12-14

God's Name is I AM.

The Jewish community and the Hebrew Christians of the New Testament did not use or include the Apocrypha. Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted the Apocrypha as divine authority. The Hebrew Bible doesn’t include them. Did early Jewish believers use anything other then the writings of the Apostles and the Old Testament? No.

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the subject of the original post. I agree with you on these points and it is only those who cannot bring themselves to admit that the "Church" could have erred about anything who will defend the indefensible. There are more than enough scholarly works that prove the "inspired" books of the Bible stopped when the last prophet's writings were done. Malachi was written around 350 BC or even earlier, but it was the last book accepted into the Jewish canon under the heading of "minor prophets" - only because they were small books but not because of importance. The writings of the New Testament, as we know, started a few decades after Jesus was resurrected.

ALL the books included in the Bible are God-breathed and, because of this, they are infallible in the truths they present, they do not contradict each other and they are accurate in all ways. Even, we are discovering, in things of a scientific nature what is said is proved true. When things of historical nature are stated, biblical archeology consistently proves. And the most important area of all, the spiritual nature, our hearts affirm the words are from God because they speak to what matters, what is truth, what is God's message to us. In the same way that the early Jews knew what came from God through his prophets, so we know in the exact same way. God does not change.

Putting any ruin of the Reformation in place of the true Church of Christ is absolutely in error. The handing down of the Faith goes back to what Jesus taught the Apostles. It does not include those who create their own faith by gazing at the content of their navels.

YAWN. Yea, we know, we heard it before, in our navels, between our toes, in our cornflakes, in the mirror, yada, yada, yada. Funny thing though, if such a thing actually happens, why is it that most of us on this "side" are in agreement about the major tenets of the Christian faith? I do not know ANY of the people I pinged in this post, have no idea what church they attend or if they attend a formal church, but I believe what they believe about Jesus, the Bible, salvation by grace through faith, eternal life is a gift of God. Though we may differ on nonessentials, we hold to what Scripture teaches and we have no problem with unity in the major things. We DO believe in the faith taught by Jesus and what God further revealed to the Apostles and disciples and what they, in turn, wrote down for us so that we can know what their faith was and we can follow it, too.

This "true Church of Christ", I'm happy to say, consists of all those who hold to the same faith of those early believers. We are all part of that universal body of Jesus Christ, no time like the present to get used to the idea.

Exactly...and I agree Boatbums...and having moved many times in my life it was necessarry to find another church fellowship...I knew what to look for in determining a church and it always rested on if or not the Pastor adhered to the scriptures and the Gospel of Jesus Christ...and preached this. Which would then require a second visit if they did where I would investiagate further.

So yes, in all case where the scriptures were clearly spoken and taught...and the Salvation message was given...there was good fellowhip....even with a stranger.

God bless you for posting those amazing Scriptures! Indeed, if Christ is not who we submit to, then there IS no other right choice. It is him or death. Living water or arid wasteland. I don't know if you have ever been to a really dry climate like Las Vegas or North Dakota, for example. In the summer, it is do dry you feel like you can never get enough to drink. Your mouth and throat are always parched. Many people get nosebleeds. I think Jesus' example is exact especially in light of the desert climate he was in as well as the Sinai desert the children of Israel wandered in. Without a constant source of water, NO ONE can survive.

It's the same thing spiritually. The hungering and thirsting after righteousness can never be satisfied apart from Jesus. HE is our bread of life and our living water of life. Without him, there is no satisfaction in this life and utter despair in the next - the eternal one. I praise and thank God every day for his "unspeakable" gift - that he gave us eternal life - through Jesus Christ, our LORD.

I agree, thank you. I think you would agree with me that how we know a "church" is teaching the truth is because we KNOW what the Bible says. It is NOT what some want everybody to believe that we all "make it up as we go along" or think of ourselves as our own "pope". That is such silly sophistry as to only be categorized as "peas" from a peashooter. We have the responsibility to learn the word of God and to be open and sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in all things. I know there are plenty of people out there who go to church because they've been taught it's what you do and they swallow whatever the leader dishes out with no basis to really know if what is said is the truth. How much they miss!

We are all to be disciples of Christ and he never intended for us to receive him as Savior and then sit back to wait out our time until we go to Heaven. We are indwelled with God's Spirit to not only be our guarantee of eternal life but to create a new nature within us. This nature wants to please God, to live Godly and holy lives. Do we go through valleys sometimes? Yes, but that is not a continuous way of life. It is NOT how we are meant to remain. God walks with us through these times and promises victory to all who surrender to him. He wants our trust, our faith, our lives, our all. In return, he provides all our needs, forgives all our trespasses, blesses the works of our hands and prepares a place for us in eternity. What a wondrous GOD we serve!

Someone asked earlier if we should believe in Jesus in order to be saved. If our motive for faith is just to go to Heaven. I thought that was a strange thing to ask because why wouldn't we want to be saved? Why shouldn't we believe in the promise of God who gives eternal life to all who would receive Christ? The more I thought about it, I think I may understand what was being expressed. The idea is whether or not we would believe in Jesus if we had no assurance of eternal life. Would we STILL trust in him and serve him? My thinking is first of all, it's a moot point seeing as God already said he gives us eternal life through Christ, but a little deeper, I would believe in Jesus because he is the truth, the life and the way. Just like God demanding we have no false gods before him, that he will glorify himself, that all glory is his, that we love him with all our hearts, minds and souls. Contrary to what some people want to make of this, God is just being honest about it. He DOES deserve all glory, honor, love, praise, and faith because that is who he is - ALMIGHTY GOD. To trust in him is also just being honest. No one deserves it but him. He created all things by his power and without him, there would be nothingness. All glory to God that we love him because he first loved us! We can trust him to do what he has said. Our faith is not in vain. We will be with him for eternity praising him and thanking him for his matchless mercy, love and grace.

>>I don’t think the Holy Spirit contradicts itself!<<

So you would also say that anything in those books that doesn’t completely agree with all the other books would indicate that they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
No. But I don’t believe there ARE any contradictions

Have you even read any of them ?

The Old Testament book of 2Kings inspired by the Holy Spirit tells us Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon 2Kings 24:1 In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him.

The Apocrypha book of Judith tells us he was the king of Assyria

Judith 1:7 Then Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians sent unto all that dwelt in Persia, and to all that dwelt westward, and to those that dwelt in Cilicia, and Damascus, and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and to all that dwelt upon the sea coast,

Whomever wrote the book of Judith wasn't even historically correct when it comes to secular history . Still think it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and equal to Scripture ?

1John tells us that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin

1John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The Apocrypha book of Tobith tells us otherwise

Tobith 12:9 For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life:

Lets see Jesus blood or paying alms cleanses sin ? They don't even come close to being the same thing so I would call that a HUGE contradiction .
These are just two small points that contradict . The apocrypha books are full of such contradictions . No they are not inspired .

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.