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.

Yet, there was Moses standing by the Transfigured Jesus.

Since we all know they didn't have cameras back then, how do you think the disciples knew Moses and Elijah were the ones standing with Jesus?

And on a related note, I believe that we will ALSO have a way of "knowing" and recognizing each other in Heaven - and it won't be by name tags. I also believe that we will not be in new bodies that show the age at which we died. Just as babies who die or young children, I don't think they will be in that same age group for eternity nor those who die as elderly. We WILL be resurrected, but we will have bodies different than our earthly ones. Your thoughts?

You mean like thinking Moses’ soul went to heaven and he was given a new body so he could return to earth?

Well, remember when that happened it was BEFORE Jesus was buried and he led the souls that were in Paradise into Heaven, once he had opened the gates to it. So Moses must have been in Paradise, not Heaven, and it was both his soul and a "type" of body that he along with Elijah had when they appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. As the story of the rich man and Lazarus says, they both had some kind of body because the rich man was in torments begging Abraham to let Lazarus dip his "finger" into water to cool his thirst. These people were said to see, hear, feel, think, etc., all the things just a spirit could not experience. Why wouldn't there be a sort of "temporary" body given to those who die before the time when the resurrections happen at the end? I'm just asking for discussion here, not thinking up some kind of new "heresy". :)

***how do you think the disciples knew Moses and Elijah were the ones standing with Jesus? ***

It is a good question, as I don’t know if there were likenesses of them that the Apostles would have recognized.

All three accounts are a little different, with two saying that Jesus was transfigured before them and then the two men appear. The other says they were heavy with sleep and almost sounds as if they were awakened by the three men talking.

It is a curious event to me and has been for awhile as I wondered how it is that Moses was there if he was not in heaven in the same way as Elijah is.

You and I have spoken before of how we will know each other and how will see each other in heaven.

Again, I believe we will see each and know each other as God does.

I have no doubt it will be beyond anything we can imagine in this life.

smvoice: ***He did not give those “other things” to a selected group of “insiders” to form new doctrines and traditions that are clearly not in the Word He has given to us.***

Jvette: He gave them authority so that we can trust in them in the same way we can trust in Jesus.

Authority is one thing. Trusting them in the same way we trust Jesus is another.

I trust Jesus for my salvation. You can't really be saying that we trust some selected group of "insiders" for that as well, can you? In light of the power to retain or remit sins that Catholicism teaches, though, I have to wonder.

What is ironic is that while you are suggesting we can trust the magisterium as we trust Jesus, non-Catholics are roundly criticized for following the teachings and doctrines of Paul, replacing Christ with Paul, and yet here you state that that's what Catholics do by replacing Christ with more than one man, a committee of men.

How does this work?

***Well, remember when that happened it was BEFORE Jesus was buried and he led the souls that were in Paradise into Heaven***

Which is why I believe that Moses was taken up after his death, most likely when Satan and the Angel Michael fought over his body.

It is just speculation on my part and not a belief that I learned from the Church but one I have come to on my own.

As for what we will be like after the resurrection, I don’t know. Jesus ate breakfast with the Apostles after His resurrection.

So when Scripture says there will be no hunger, I don’t know if that means we will never eat or that food will be so plentiful that we will never hunger.

There is much we don’t know, wouldn’t you say?

***What is ironic is that while you are suggesting we can trust the magisterium as we trust Jesus,***

We do not trust them for salvation, only Jesus has made that possible for anyone.

By trust, we can know that what they teach as true is indeed true. The Holy Spirit working through them and in us at the behest of the Father and Jesus is the basis for that trust.

***non-Catholics are roundly criticized for following the teachings and doctrines of Paul,***

I have not done that, nor would I. Paul’s teachings and doctrines are the same as those of Jesus, but we differ some in the way we interpret Paul.

***replacing Christ with Paul, and yet here you state that that’s what Catholics do by replacing Christ with more than one man, a committee of men.***

We do not replace Christ with a committee of men. We trust that Jesus has left us an authority to sift through all the “theologies” and “thoughts” of men and that the Holy Spirit guides them to teach only truth.

It cannot be disputed that things(heresies) have arisen since the writing of Scripture and without a trustworthy authority to proclaim what is truth, then we are tossed about by all manner of crazy and heretical doctrines.

I have a deep regard for Protestants who repectfully disagree with the Catholic faith and the magisterium. I have no use for those who would disparage and ridicule and declare it satanic, all the while claiming THEY are being guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore, have the authority to interpret Scripture.

If you or any other protestant want to discuss the different aspects of our faith respectfully, I will gladly do so. I also will not disparage what you believe, but I am no saint and will sometimes let my frustration get the best of me.

Maybe if you read FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS...a Protestant classic, by the way.... .you might understand that statement. But....I doubt it.

Have YOU read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? You call it a "Protestant classic", but do you realize many of the Roman Catholics on this forum have discredited that book because it also tells of those believers made martyrs BY Roman Catholics? Maybe it would be beneficial for you to read it, in fact, it is online. You can read it from the link http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/:

John Fox's famous book detailing the lives, sufferings and triumphant deaths of the early Christian and the Protestant Martyrs.

Edited by William Byron Forbush This is a book that will never die -- one of the great English classics. . . . Reprinted here in its most complete form, it brings to life the days when "a noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid," "climbed the steep ascent of heaven, 'mid peril, toil, and pain." "After the Bible itself, no book so profoundly influenced early Protestant sentiment as the Book of Martyrs. Even in our time it is still a living force. It is more than a record of persecution. It is an arsenal of controversy, a storehouse of romance, as well as a source of edification."

Fox's Book of Martyrs is in the public domain and may be freely used and distributed.

I was raised Southern Baptist. When I was 25 years old, I converted. Tenets of Faith: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the Life of the age to come. Amen. Or in Greek if you prefer: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων. Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων· φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. Τὸν δι ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός. Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν. Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν.

It is a curious event to me and has been for awhile as I wondered how it is that Moses was there if he was not in heaven in the same way as Elijah is. You and I have spoken before of how we will know each other and how will see each other in heaven. Again, I believe we will see each and know each other as God does.

I believe Moses was in the same place as Abraham AND Elijah, and since the time of the Transfiguration was BEFORE Jesus removed the wall that was between us and Almighty God, preventing human presence in God's Heaven, they were in the place Jesus referred to as "Paradise". But since Elijah was not already dead when he was taken up to God, what kind of body he has right now is not known. Those people that were raised from the grave at the crucifixtion, are not spoken of again as far as I know, so they either eventually died again, were buried and await the resurrection or something else. Another poser, I guess.

I don't know HOW we will recognize each other but, I agree, we certainly WILL. Perhaps that same kind of spiritual recognition was gifted to the Apostles so that they "knew" they were seeing Moses and Elijah with Jesus. Jesus, too, was in his "glorified" state with them, and it gave them a foretaste of eternity with the Lord. I believe that when the "resurrection" of the dead in Christ, as well as those who are damned, happens the body that is formed has the capability to "exist" in eternity - both the saved and the condemned. Hell is spoken of as a place "where the worm dieth not" as well as eternal torment and suffering. I think this is not just a spiritual experience. So, just as our current human bodies are not made to last forever, our resurrected ones will be. I know the doctrine of the final resurrection is a dearly held doctrine of the Christian faith, but our human understanding of exactly how it will all happen is one part a few Scriptural references and the rest conjecture and philosophizing. Regardless, we know we will ALL be changed, in a moment, in a "twinkling of the eye". Even those whose bodies have long past disintegrated and whose dust has scattered to the winds, will, by the power of God, STILL be resurrected.

No doubt, however our Lord does it, it will be unimaginable for the finite minds we have right now to comprehend. But, for now, as the Creed says, I look forward to the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. And as Paul said, if there be no resurrection, then Christ is not raised, and if Christ be not raised we are dead in our sins and our faith is in vain. But now IS Christ risen and so will we to enjoy his presence forever! Amen.

The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed are pretty much what I would call the basic tenets of the Christian faith and I can't think of any Christian denomination that would disagree. What seems to matter, though, is how these are "interpreted". For example, to say you believe Jesus Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven there are those who say this meant Jesus only "cleared the way" or opened the gates of Heaven so that we might go there if we're worthy or good enough. While others believe it means, as Scripture says dozens of times, that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and God offers to us eternal life by his grace through faith in Jesus Christ and NOT because we deserve it or are good enough.

The same thing with the phrase, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Some believe that is speaking of the universal, spiritual Body of Christ, but others believe it speaks of THE Catholic Church, which excludes any other believers in Christ that aren't members of the institutional Roman Catholic Church.

The phrase, We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. Some believe that it speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that happens as a result of confessing with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in our heart God raised him from the dead. Yet others say it speaks of the sacrament of water baptism and nobody can be saved until they have themselves water baptized. Some think tiny babies can have this baptism, but others believe faith must come first then the act of water baptism as an outward testimony of the act of receiving Christ as Savior.

But I'm glad you posted this and you may want to draw on your memories of being in the Southern Baptist Church. Is there anything in these creeds that "they" did not teach and preach as well? Did what they believe concur with Holy Scripture? Can you remember anything outlandish that they taught that goes against the tenets of these creeds? When I think back on what I learned as a Roman Catholic, I can honestly say I repeated those words hundreds of times, if not thousands, but I didn't really let them reach my heart and grasp their real meaning until I was shown Scripture in a little Southern Baptist Sunday school room. What matters above all labels, is what we believe about what God has revealed to us. Saying words counts as nothing with him if they don't echo in our hearts as well. I just realized how late it is, so I'm signing off soon. Hope you have a good night.

Scripture never claims that ALL of Truth is contained within itself. Instead, Scripture says that ALL that is Scripture is true and beneficial for our salvation.

Hello!!

Nobody ever said anything but that.

Every time we say that, some Catholic (present company obviously excluded) comes along and twists it and accuses us non-Catholics of saying that only Scripture contains all truth period and attacks us for doing something not that we did but rather what they made up and accused us of instead.

Perhaps you ought to stop taking at face value what other Catholics state ABOUT us and read what we ourselves say. You've always been reasonable on these threads. Do us that courtesy as well.

That said, as for addressing anything outside of Scripture, when making the claim about the truth of something not specifically addressed by Scripture, that is where EVERYTHING that is considered must be evaluated in light of the word of God.

The recognition that there can be truth found outside of Scripture does not give license to anyone to make stuff up and declare it as truth simply because it isn't specifically addressed in Scripture. It MUST line up with Scripture to be given any serious consideration.

This is their “rock” and if the claim of being led by the Holy Spirit is their only defense. For, if all that is needed is the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture, then why is so much time devoted to explaining the various Greek and Hebrew words and culture used in the originals.

Our *rock* is Jesus.

Even with looking at the Greek and Hebrew for clarification in the translation of a word, without the leading and enlightening of the Holy Spirit, the whole of Scripture itself is meaningless to the natural man, especially the message of the cross. That's what can't be understood without the enlightening of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Corinthians 2:6-16 6Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But, as it is written,

"What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"—

10these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

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.