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.

>>>>Everything that Scripture DOES NOT SAY is what Catholicism is based on. Isn’t that just the beauty of cultism. You cannot prove that it’s not so because Scripture doesn’t say that it is. <<<<<

The source and summit of the Catholic faith is Jesus, crucified, risen and present in the Eucharist.

All of which is found in Scripture.

>>>>>The logic of madmen. And the desperation of the deceived. All to receive that “special” cracker. That’s what it is ALL about.

“1 Corinthians 11:27-29

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Once again....

One receives the Eucharist because one is Catholic, one is not Catholic because one receives the Eucharist.

IOWs belief comes first.

A personal belief that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist is just that, a personal belief. It is contrary to the words of Jesus who said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” and then commanded us to “Do this in remembrance of me.” Words which are affirmed by Paul after receiving them from Christ Himself.

Mock at one’s own peril.

Read it again, only rather than begin where James declare agreement with Peter.

It was quite clearly brought to all the Apostles and elders, and there was much debate.

Peter stands and gives testimony to the fact that the Holy Spirit revealed to him that the uncircumcised could receive God’s grace through Jesus.

James merely affirms what Peter has said and agrees that no burdens should be placed. It was James’ judgement that the burden of circumcision should not be place upon the Gentiles and all the others agreed with him.

James was not the “leader” nor was he the final authority.

Peter has the vision regarding Cornelius and his family.

Then....

1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Then....

5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Then....

13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas;

There is a very clear sequence of events.

There is a revelation
The revelation is told to the apostles and the elders, who debate it’s message and what it means for the faithful.
A belief or position is formulated.
That belief is agreed to by the whole of the apostles and elders.
A message is sent out to the believers regarding what was agreed to and how it pertains to the lives of the faithful.

This is the blueprint for all the following councils and synods and such that the Church has had since.

James agrees with Peter and clarifies what his judgement is on the subject of the debate.

Sentence:obsolete : opinion; especially : a conclusion given on request or reached after deliberation

James makes no pronouncement, he gives his opinion upon hearing all that Peter and the others say. And the others do not acquiesce to James, they agree with him and acquiesce to the revelation given to Peter.

IF you were as wise as you think you are, you would be searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so, D-. You would also be comparing Scripture with Scripture to understand what you are discounting. You seemed not to like my Isaiah to Luke comparison I gave you earlier. Of course not, it proves a point. Comparing Scripture with Scripture teaches and makes one understand God's word and His dealings with man, on His terms, not the terms man has decided are worthy.

Why was Scripture given, D-? Do you even know? Scripture was given that the man of God might be perfectly fitted and fully equipped for his work. See 2 Tim. 3:17. We are to be soldiers for Christ, thoroughly equipped and capable of wielding the Sword of the Spirit.

So, how do we study God's word to become the soldier, the effective workman for God that He expects us to be? 2 TIm.2:15 will tell you.

Does that mean "This is for the Jew and that is for the church. This is for us and that is not for us." Is that what you think rightly dividing God's word is? You honestly believe that we should not distinguish between God's program for Israel in the OT times and His program for the body of Christ today? Do you honestly believe that those of us who follow 2 Tim. 2:15 do not believe the whole Bible? Are you implying that those who rightly divide the Word of truth discard parts of the Bible as not for them?

After all the earnest prayers of Paul that believers might have the spirit of WISDOM and REVELATION in the KNOWLEDGE of Christ (Eph.1:17), that they might KNOW what is theirs in Christ (Eph. 1:18-23), and COMPREHEND the breadth and length and depth and height of it. (Eph. 3:18). This after all his LABOR and STRIFE and CONFLICT that they might have "THE FULL ASSURANCE OF UNDERSTANDING" (Col. 1:28-2:2). This after ALL HIS PRAYERS that they might "BE FILLED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WILL IN ALL WISDOM AND SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING" (Col. 1:9). This after his STERN REBUKE of those CARNAL BABES to whom he could preach NO MORE THAN CHRIST CRUCIFIED; whom he had to FEED WITH MILK ALONE because they were UNABLE TO DIGEST SOLID FOOD.(1 Cor. 2 and 3).

This is what passes for knowledge today in this age of grace. Many people trust Christ for salvation, but beyond that, they are stunted in their growth in God's Word for them. Feelings are taken for facts and their own wishes for God's Word. They read the Bible and take to themselves only what warms their hearts and leave the rest unapplied. And in most cases, they don't even know why they do that.

All the Bible is given to us for our understanding and profit, but carrying out the instructions meant particularly for another group in God's plan for man is not only a waste of time, but an insult to the very instructions God gave us for our time. Who is addressing whom, about what and when and why are the first questions that any believer should ask. If you cannot ask those questions, then you're probably going to get mired in confusion. Since God is not the author of confusion, then it's the reader's fault for not studying His Word of Truth, rightly divided that is the cause for confusion. And in some cases, outright deceit. How do you think cults are formed? Taking a little of God's Word here, a little there, mixing just enough Scripture to make it sound right, but the end thereof is destruction.

Follow God's Word as you think fit, study it rightly divided, open up a page and point your finger as to which verse you will follow for the day, bring a sheep to slaughter, it's your life that is going to have to be defended before God. OR you can understand that God's dealings with man have been a progressive revelation, not a one time happening.

And one other thing, you are mistaking the PRINCIPLES OF GOD with the DISPENSATIONS OF GOD. God's principles never change. The way He deals with mankind because of His principles has changed. Unless you're wearing a fig leaf and avoiding apples, it is obviously so.

BTW: Didn't like my Isaiah to Luke comparison? Here's another one. A red words so Christ said them, for you: "When they were therefore come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at THIS TIME restore again THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL? And he said unto them, It is NOT for YOU to KNOW THE TIMES OR THE SEASONS, which the Father hath PUT IN HIS OWN POWER." Acts 1:6,7.

Hmmmmmm, Christ, ONCE AGAIN, dividing times and seasons. Just like He did in Luke. Deny or disregard all you want. It doesn't change the facts. There are times and seasons and ages and dispensations in God's plan for mankind.

I thought I would post this little bit for the Protestant contingent to read:

IN THE ORIGINAL PRECISE meaning of the word, Sacred Tradition is the tradition which comes from the ancient Church of Apostolic times. In the second to the fourth centuries this was called “the Apostolic Tradition.”

One must keep in mind that the ancient Church carefully guarded the inward life of the Church from those outside of her; her Holy Mysteries were secret, being kept from non-Christians. When these Mysteries were performed- Baptism or the Eucharist-those outside the Church were not present; the order of the services was not written down, but was only transmitted orally; and in what was preserved in secret was contained the essential side of the faith. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) presents this to us especially clearly. In undertaking Christian instruction for those who had not yet expressed a final decision to become Christians, the hierarch precedes his teachings with the following words: “When the catechetical teaching is pronounced, if a catechumen should ask you, ‘What did the instructors say?’ you are to repeat nothing to those who are without (the church). For we are giving to you the mystery and hope of the future age. Keep the Mystery of Him Who is the Giver of rewards. May no one say to you, ‘What harm is it if I shall find out also?’ Sick people also ask for wine, but if it is given at the wrong time it produces disorder to the mind, and there are two evil consequences; the sick one dies, and the physician is slandered” (Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures, ch. 12).

In one of his further homilies St. Cyril again remarks: “ We include the whole teaching of faith in a few lines. And I would wish that you should remember it word for word and should repeat it among yourselves with all fervor, without writing it down on paper, but noting it by memory in the heart. And you should beware, lest during the time of your occupation with this study none of the catechumens should hear what has been handed down to you” (Fifth Catechetical Lecture, ch. 12). In the introductory words which he wrote down for those being “illumined!” — that is, those who were already coming to Baptism, and also to those present who were baptized — he gives the following warning: “This instruction for those who are being illumined is offered to be read by those who are coming to Baptism and by the faithful who have already received Baptism; but by no means give it either to the catechumens or to anyone else who has not yet become a Christian, otherwise you will have to give an answer to the Lord. And if you make a copy of these catechetical. lectures, then, as before the Lord, write this down also” (that is, this warning, End of the Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures).

In the following words St. Basil the Great gives us a clear understanding of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition: “Of the dogmas and sermons preserved in the Church, certain ones we have from written instruction, and certain ones we have received from the Apostolic Tradition, handed down in secret. Both the one and the other have one and the same authority for piety, and no one who is even the least informed in the decrees of the Church will contradict this. For if we dare to overthrow the unwritten customs as if they did not have great importance, we shall thereby imperceptively do harm to the Gospel in its most important points. And even more, we shall be left with the empty name of the Apostolic preaching without content. For example, let us especially make note of the first and commonest thing, that those who hope in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the Sign of the Cross. Who taught this in Scripture? Which Scripture instructed us that we should turn to the east in prayer? Which of the saints left us in written form the words of invocation during the transformation of the bread of the Eucharist and the Chalice of blessing? For we are not satisfied with the words which are mentioned in the Epistles or the Gospels, but both before them and after them we pronounce others also as having great authority for the Mystery, having received them from the unwritten teaching. By what Scripture, likewise, do we bless the water of Baptism and the oil of anointing and, indeed, the one being baptized himself Is this not the silent and secret tradition? And what more? What written word has taught us this anointing with oil itself? Where is the triple immersion and all the rest that has to do with Baptism, the renunciation of Satan and his angels to be found? What Scripture are these taken from? Is it not from this unpublished and unspoken teaching which our Fathers have preserved in a silence inaccessible to curiosity and scrutiny, because they were thoroughly instructed to preserve in silence the sanctity of the Mysteries? For what propriety would there be to proclaim in writing a teaching concerning that which it is not allowed for the unbaptized even to behold?” (On the Holy Spirit, ch. 27).

From these words of St. Basil the Great we may conclude: first, that the Sacred Tradition of the teaching of faith is that which may be traced back to the earliest period of the Church, and, second, that it was carefully preserved and unanimously acknowledged among the Fathers and teachers of the Church during the epoch of the great Fathers and the beginning of the Ecumenical Councils.

Although St. Basil has given here a series of examples of the “oral” tradition, he himself in this very text has taken a step towards the “recording” of this oral word. During the era of the freedom and triumph of the Church in the fourth century, almost all of the tradition in general received a written form and is now preserved in the literature of the Church, which comprises a supplement to the Holy Scripture.

We find this sacred ancient Tradition

in the most ancient record of the Church, the Canons of the Holy Apostles;

in the Symbols of Faith of the ancient local churches;

in the ancient Liturgies, in the rite of Baptism, and in other ancient prayers;

in the ancient Acts of the Christian martyrs. The Acts of the martyrs did not enter into use by the faithful until they had been examined and approved by the local bishops; and they were read at the public gatherings of Christians under the supervision of the leaders of the churches. In them we see the confession of the Most Holy Trinity, the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, examples of the invocation of the saints, of belief in the conscious life of those who had reposed in Christ, and much else;

in the ancient records of the history of the Church, especially in the book of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, where there are gathered many ancient traditions of rite and dogma-in particular, there is given the canon of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments;

in the works of the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church;

and, finally, in the very spirit of the Church’s life, in the preservation of faithfulness to all her foundations which come from the Holy Apostles.

The Apostolic Tradition which has been preserved and guarded by the Church, by the very fact that it has been kept by the Church, becomes the Tradition of the Church herself, it “belongs” to her, it testifies to her; and, in parallel to Sacred Scripture it is called by her, “Sacred Tradition.”

The witness of Sacred Tradition is indispensable for our certainty that all the books of Sacred Scripture have been handed down to us from Apostolic times and are of Apostolic origin. Sacred Tradition is necessary for the correct understanding of separate passages of Sacred Scripture, and for refuting heretical reinterpretations of it, and, in general, so as to avoid superficial, one-sided, and sometimes even prejudiced and false interpretations of it.

Finally, Sacred Tradition is also necessary because some truths of the faith are expressed in a completely definite form in Scripture, while others are not entirely clear and precise and therefore demand confirmation by the Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

The Apostle commands, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and bold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Besides all this, Sacred Scripture is valuable because from it we see how the whole order of Church organization, the canons, the Divine Services and rites are rooted in and founded upon the way of life of the ancient Church. Thus, the preservation of “Tradition” expresses the succession of the very essence of the Church.

Peter already had made his “sentence”, James merely agrees with Peter.

Under the definition of ‘sentence’ James has given his judgement on what Peter has said. James did not receive the revelation, nor did he call the council, nor did he do anything other than listen to the testimony of Peter and Paul and Barnabas and then agree that the Gentiles were not to be burdened with circumcision.

****James’ sentence, not our decision, not the decision of Peter, the decision of James the leader.****

Did you miss the part where it was agreeable to all the Apostles and elders and the whole church which was assembled?

23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

30So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

31Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

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.