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.

[boatbums]

There was no hatred on my part. As for comments, they were in response to OTHERS, and if one can’t stand the heat, then maybe they out to look at themselves also. As I have said, everyone here, including myself have been rude at times, as well as insensitive.

Glad to hear your responses are not motivated by hate. Of course, I hope you understand how we say something may express far more than what we say. If you go backwards and read the various comments and what instigated them, you should see a pattern. Oftentimes, a criticism of Catholicism is interpreted as anti-Catholic, as in the person versus the religion. This is a mistake simply because the very point of open religion forums is to dialog on beliefs, doctrines and dogmas. What I see most times, is it is usually one group that can't stand the heat and they lash out in anger, derogatory comments, insults and, yes, hatred. It is far better for those types to stay off open forums for this very reason.

Though I cannot speak for anyone but myself, let me say that my motivation is NOT to belittle or degrade or even pity, it is trying to speak the truth in love. I do not view this forum as a battleground or debate where "winning" at all costs is the goal. That's not how I see this.

[CynicalBear]

Pay attention. I said prove that any said “no matter what else they do for the rest of their lives”. Good grief.

[D-fendr]

I grew up in the South, Bible Belt, and Blessed Assurance, OSAS it is.

And this thread is positively lousy with “all my sins, past, present and future are forgiven” posts.

It really kinda follows logically.

In the Church of Me, I’m the judge of me.

[smvoice]

You seem very confident in your wit. After all what could be worse than studying God's word in a garage, or a living room, or a bench in a park? Or a ditch in a war zone? It isn't very pretty and it doesn't cause one to "feel" holy, and pious, does it? It's the surroundings that God truly appreciates. He DOES love a beautiful cathedral..after all, He would not look upon the plain, or the simple, or the lackluster. It would simply be beneath Him.

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, as as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." Isaiah 53:2.

That must be talking about Satan, It could not POSSIBLY be describing our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ...

"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabretsand of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created." Ez. 28:13. Ah, this is more like it! The beauty! The pomp and circumstance! The desires of men! To worship the beauty that is Christ. Uh, no, SATAN.

Continue to be impressed by the surroundings, and the beauty of the outward appearances. Peter was a fisherman. I'm sure he smelled great. Christ preached not only in the Temple, but in the wilderness, in boats, on dirt roads, and He smelled the smell of the rotted flesh of leprosy.

If both Christ and Satan appeared in person today, which would impress you more? I already know the answer, it's in all your posts.

[Natural Law]

"Matthew 16:18-19. But of course you know the verses of which I speak."

Upon the meaning of "this Rock" hangs the entire validity, identity, credibility and future of Protestantism. No amount of discussion, reasoning, or supporting Scripture will dissuade Protestants from their stance. The consequences are too dire for them to consider. For if Jesus did indeed found His Church upon Peter 500 years of Protestantism has been a cruel joke on them.

Protestantism claims the difference between Petra and Petros is key and definitive. However, we know from John 1:42 that Jesus named Simon (Peter) Kepha, and not Petros ("You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas which, when translated, is Peter.")

Further all of Paul's writings are in Greek and if Peter was given the Greek name Petros by Jesus Paul certainly have used this. But he generally doesn't. Most of the time St. Paul refers to Peter Cephas instead, the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha.

The Peshitta (the Syriac Bible) is very similar to the Aramaic language. The passage from Matthew reads, “Again I say to you that you are the Rock (Kepha), and upon this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church, and the gates of Sheol will not subdue it.” There's is nothing to suggest outside of the Protestant need that Jesus has suddenly switched to speaking about Himself mid sentence.

[D-fendr]

That’s quite a long post to be completely off the point.

It’s not about the surroundings, it’s about the pride of The Church of Me.

And what a small, fragmented Body of Christ that would be with all the lonely Churches of Me.

It’s too sad not to joke about.

[CynicalBear]

Wow, what a comparison, and so true. I’ll stick with the few of us around the living room or kitchen table.

[boatbums]

We understand the difference between wholeheartedly believing in and trusting in God, and self-declaration of one's own salvation.

See, I'm not getting that impression at all. In fact, it sounds like "you" (the we) mistake assurance and trust in the promises of God as "self-declaration" of ones own salvation. Not a one of "us" believes we merit this salvation or deserves it in ANY way. No, it is falling upon the mercy seat of God's grace and taking him at his word that he WILL save us if we receive Christ and trust in his sacrifice for our sins. The only way we can be sure of our salvation is because God DID say we can. In John's epistle I John, he says in chapter 5 verse 13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." So, it is NOT presumption nor pride in our merit that we say we know we are saved, but simply believing God. He WILL do as he says he will do.

[MarkBsnr]

Riiiiiggggghhhhhttttt. And which one of the Popes had emblems on his robe to Mary.

Big deal. The papal coat of arms has keys. Do you think we worship keys?

[smvoice]

Actually, it is quite ON the point. And has been for a very long time. It's all about the pride of The Church of Rome. "We do this, we've done that, we've given you this, we're a billion strong,brrrkkkk, we're 2000 years old, brrrkkkk, we're the only way to heaven,brrrkkkk, we, we,we. Look at us. Aren't we just beautiful and look around us. We have arrived. And our success is proven by all you can see."

and YES, it is INDEED too sad to joke about.

[boatbums]

I'm not the one posting from a human being (Paul) and trying to trump the words of Almighty God in the Gospels.

Since when are Paul's words NOT the words of Almighty God? Even St. Peter acknowledged Paul's writing as Scripture and that clearly means they are NOT simply words of a human being.

[MarkBsnr]

Find me the quote where a Protestant said that or forever admit you just declared a falsehood.

Why not check out http://www.av1611.org/etern.html. Some tidbits:

Our salvation is so secure — even if we BELIEVE NOT after we're saved, because we become part of Him (the body of Christ

1 Corinthians 5 reports of an awful sin in the church. And even though Paul commands ". . . To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh" — Paul still speaks of that person being saved — ". . .that the spirit MAY BE SAVED. . ."

With all the PROMISES from God to KEEP you, to SAVE you, to PRESERVE you — to even suggest you could lose your salvation — is to call God a LIAR!

Convinced? No? Perhaps these good people can help enlighten.

[CynicalBear]

>> And this thread is positively lousy with “all my sins, past, present and future are forgiven” posts.<<

So tell us, which sins were forgiven at Calvary? Were all sins forgiven, just some sins? If just some which ones? Were only sins prior to Calvary forgiven?

Which of the following verses would you say is untrue?

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 John1:7 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.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[boatbums]

Will the Gloria do?

Here is the truth of the matter.

So, are you convinced that everyone who "says" these words - even on their knees in church - truly means them in the way God says all one day will? There is a huge difference between them, you know.

[CynicalBear]

Here’s the list of Bishops from Hyppolytus. Would you find for us where Peter’s name is?

• Now let’s look at the list of Bishops from Hyppolytus.

1. James the Lord's brother, bishop of Jerusalem.
2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
3. Matthias, who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles.
4. Thaddeus, who conveyed the epistle to Augarus.
5. Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus.
6. Stephen, the first martyr.
7. Philip, who baptized the eunuch.
8. Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, who also was the first that departed, believing together with his daughters.
9. Nicanor died when Stephen was martyred.
10. Timon, bishop of Bostra.
11. Parmenas, bishop of Soli.
12. Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria.
13. Barnabas, bishop of Milan.
14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.
15. Luke the evangelist.
These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me." But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.
16. Silas, bishop of Corinth.
17. Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica.
18. Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul.
19. Epaenetus, bishop of Carthage.
20. Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia.
21. Amplias, bishop of Odyssus.
22. Urban, bishop of Macedonia.
23. Stachys, bishop of Byzantium.
24. Barnabas, bishop of Heraclea.
25. Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus. He was of the party also of Simon.
26. Hermogenes. He, too, was of the same mind with the former.
27. Demas, who also became a priest of idols.
28. Apelles, bishop of Smyrna.
29. Aristobulus, bishop of Britain.
30. Narcissus, bishop of Athens.
31. Herodion, bishop of Tarsus.
32. Agabus the prophet.
33. Rufus, bishop of Thebes.
34. Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania.
35. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon.
36. Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia.
37. Patrobulus, bishop of Puteoli.
38. Hermas, bishop of Philippi.
39. Linus, bishop of Rome.
40. Caius, bishop of Ephesus.
41. Philologus, bishop of Sinope.

(Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End.)

Then there is this from the Anti Nicene Fathers.

"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul [Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:]

Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? Also, if Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.

Common NL, surely you can find an early church father who would list Peter as the first Pope, right?

[MarkBsnr]

Nobody is perfect but anyone who trusts in Christ, who is IN Christ, has been declared righteous. We have been clothed in His righteousness because our lives are hidden with Christ in God.

If you sin, you are not perfect. Only God is perfect.

God does not count our sin against us, even though He does have the right to if He chooses. But he chose not to for those who by faith accept the work of Christ on the cross for their sins.

John 14: 21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”o 22Judas, not the Iscariot,* said to him, “Master, [then] what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?”p 23Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.q 24Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.

[MarkBsnr]

Of course you weren’t trying to trap me were you. And no I don’t wear a wedding ring.

Hardly a trap. I wear a wedding ring. And I celebrate Christmas and Easter, too.

[MarkBsnr]

It was about personal power, wealth and religious anarchy.

Sounds like the vatican to me.

Mark - IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS!

It's supposed to be all about Jesus; the legacy of the Reformation is that it is not for the children of the Reformation.

[D-fendr]

Oh, look!

The fallible man is asking for another fallible man’s opinion!

Sorry, Charlie....

Them’s your rules.

[CynicalBear]

>> Big deal. The papal coat of arms has keys. Do you think we worship keys?<<

Nice try but once again you need to study up.

Pope John Paul II had this embroidered on the side of his robe "TOTUS TUUS SUM MARIA". I’m sure you could help us all and tell us what it says right? Let me help you out. It means “I am all yours Mary”. All yours Mary? Not all yours Christ? Then tell us what the M on his coat of arms is for.