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]

think that Jesus taught in English

With modern vernacular to boot. My personal favorite is that Jesus dissed His mother by addressing her as "Woman.."

[CynicalBear]

>> Can you show me veneration of Hippolytus?<<

From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

A monument of importance is the large fragment of a marble statue of the saint discovered in 1551 which underwent restoration (the upper part of the body and the head being new), and is now preserved in the Lateran museum; the paschal cycle computed by Hippolytus and a list of his writings are engraved on the sides of the chair on which the figure of Hippolytus is seated; the monument dates from the third century (Kraus, "Realencyklopädie der christlichen Altertumer", 661 sqq.).

The topographies of the graves of the Roman martyrs place the grave of Hippolytus in the cemetery on the Via Tiburtina named after him, mention the basilica erected there, and give some legendary details concerning him. (De Rossi, "Roma sotterranea", I, 178-79); the burial vault of the sainted confessor was unearthed by De Rossi (Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1882, 9-76).

Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era.

[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm]

[smvoice]

Well, didn't you just break my heart. First YOU ASK ME questions about dispensationalism, then when I answer your question, you dismiss it as if I had knocked on YOUR door to hand out a bible tract. And actually, you seem very much a scriptural illiterate. One cannot be Scripturally intelligent and a follower of the RCC. They don't match, if you haven't noticed. The truth is a total stranger to you, if you met it, you would turn around and run to the nearest Mass for a wafer and a sip. To make you feel better and all.

Your religion is much older than mine. Yours began in Genesis Chapter 3, was enlarged in Gen. Chapter 10, and has grown steadily since then. I don't think you could ever discern truth from a lie. The truth IS a lie to your religion. So continue the facade of knowing God's Word, and be smug in your "knowledge" of Christ's teachings, and God's plan for man. You've cast your lot, but there are those who have not, yet. Those are the ones who need to hear the truth. Not the RCCs "version of the truth." There is a difference.

[CynicalBear]

>>Since you have abandoned Christ (another term for sinning), He will send you to the fate you have chosen. If you refuse Christ, what does He say about you?<<

No,no,no. You’re not getting me here. If Christ is “in you”. Maybe this will give you a starting point.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

[CynicalBear]

>>Pick out a short list of mallfront churches blind from the phone book and visit one each week.<<

Been there done that. Why do you think I belong to no organized religion? Showing how many of them are also off track does not make the CC correct.

[D-fendr]

First YOU ASK ME questions about dispensationalism

I'm sorry. I thought that in the context of the discussion it was clear I was asking you to tell others, particularly nonCatholics, all about it and convert them. I thought my opinion of your teachers and my view of their religion was quite clear.

You've cast your lot, but there are those who have not, yet. Those are the ones who need to hear the truth.

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Have at 'em.

I'm still waiting to hear if Metmom is going to be a good prospect for you or is already down with Darby.

Your religion is much older than mine.

I think that comes under 'damning with faint praise' since there's very very few that aren't:

[boatbums]

Bwahahahahaha! The only thing Peter did in Rome was die. Maybe. Hehe Since they found the sarcophagus that can’t even be proven.

I think the idea of Peter being the first "Pope" of Roman Catholicism and that somehow "proving" Apostolic Succession is a far more important "fig leaf" for them than it is for us. There are MUCH more important differences than that. In your example following of James being the head of the church in Jerusalem while Peter was definitely NOT in charge and presiding over the council, pretty blatantly proves Peter was NOT the head of the church. But also, the many times in Scripture where James is called the Lord's brother, why wouldn't THIS be the Catholics other fig leaf - that stripped away leaves THEM naked - because it proves Mary had more children than just Jesus? Therefore, her "perpetual" virginity would have to be acknowledged as false leaving the Catholics with yet another "infallible" doctrine stripped away.

I wish these two areas were the only ones with which we part ways. That they follow an accursed Gospel is what bothers me the most. Nobody will go to hell based on what they do or don't believe about Peter OR about Mary's perpetual virginity, but no one can be saved who relies on their own merit and works to save them. It is by God's grace NOT of our works that we are saved and to really trust in Christ and believe on his name means letting go of the idea that we can do anything to earn our forgiveness or pay the penalty of our sins.

[CynicalBear]

>> Wtihin the context of Jesus teaching, of course, He wanted them to pay attention to Him at the moment, rather than disturb His teachings to the crowd.<<

That is so lame it doesn’t deserve comment other than to call it nonsense.

>> However we still have the elaborate verses in Luke 1<<

The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,

Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.

The Greek word charitoó is used by Catholics to try to point to Mary being “full of grace” or “highly favored. The word charitoo according to Greek concordances is: From charis; to grace, i.e. Indue with special honor -- make accepted, be highly favoured. [http://concordances.org/greek/5487.htm]

The word is used twice in the New Testament. Once in Luke 1 and the other in Ephesians 1.

Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

[metmom]

An inheritance is a gift. One may refuse a gift, or else spurn it at a later date.

Actually, an inheritance is the child's by right.

Nevertheless, while one may be able to reject a proffered gift as an act of one's will, once that gift is accepted, one does not have to pay to earn it or keep it.

It becomes the legal property of the recipient, no strings attached.

[CynicalBear]

>>Where does it say that they wrote in any other language than Greek?<<

I didn’t say they wrote the letter in different languages. I said they quoted the text above Jesus in the language of each. Each inscription would have meant something a little different to each group. The inscription which include the home of Nazareth especially.

[metmom]

D-fendr:the number of ‘denominations’ in the world currently exceeds 26,000 I used think that was high, but with the "I am the church" posts lately, I'm thinking it could be way low.

MB: All you have to do is open up a phone directory for an indication.

1 Corinthians 12

1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 3Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

27Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

[D-fendr]

Ah, here it is, in the post your reply was to, I was addressing Metmom:

SmVoice can tell you all about it, right smvoice?

[CynicalBear]

>>The great white throne Judgement is for the pure?<<

The Great White Throne judgment is the judgment of unbelievers in which they are judged according to their works and sentenced to everlasting punishment in the lake of fire. It has nothing to do with those who are saved. It’s also after the Millenium which Catholics don’t understand I don’t believe. At that time He also opens the “book of life” which list those who have been saved and they are rewarded according to what they have done for Christ.

[smvoice]

Still you don’t see what the Bible plainly states. That will be sorted out on the day of judgement. Hopefully you carry a copy of “History of Dispensationalism” to show God when His times and seasons and ages began. Of course, with all the traditions, and doctrines and creeds and councils and declarations you’ll have to carry in order to show Him where He is wrong, the copy of Dispensationalism could get lost in the shuffle. Actually the “History of Dispensationalism” will be the least of your worries on that day. Have a good one.

[CynicalBear]

>>but no one can be saved who relies on their own merit and works to save them.<<

Making grace of non affect should send shudders but doesn’t seem to.

[D-fendr]

Sigh. I doubt you realize it, but the logic of your post would have Paul continuing:

"Contrarily, each member is the body, not just a part of the body, but the whole body. Therefore, each of you should say: "I'm not a part of the Body; I am the whole Body of Christ, I am the Church."

Some folks just should not do apologetics.

[D-fendr]

Hopefully you carry a copy of “History of Dispensationalism”

Always with me. In my watch pocket. It's a tiny book.

[smvoice]

The best things usually come in small packages. Hence the irony of “one billion strong..brrrrkkkk”.

[CynicalBear]

>>Yours began in Genesis Chapter 3, was enlarged in Gen. Chapter 10, and has grown steadily since then.<<

I’m thinking Nimrod, Semiramus, and Tammuz.We see Tammuz again in Jeremiah.

[D-fendr]

I prefer the saying: He that is all wrapped up in self makes a very small package.

Christianity has a long history. Given this fact alone, a religion that started in the 1830s would be rightfully suspect to most Christians.