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.

[metmom]

The first Bishop of the Church was James, “Brother” of our Lord. The first Church Council was held in Jerusalem.

Well, that sure shoots the RC version down in flames.

[smvoice]

It will never be sorted out...wait..it WILL be sorted out one day. When it’s all thrown in the fire and burns to nothing but a heap of smoldering ashes.

[metmom]

Jvette: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.

mm:Hello!! Nobody ever said anything but that.

mm:You guys claim that all the time.

Show me where......

For a start, you can go through my posting history to find it, although you will be wasting your time because I NEVER said that. But look away.....

[MarkBsnr]

>>You cannot claim the authority of the Church in some matters but not all.<<

I wasn’t claiming the authority of the RCC. You are the one who thinks the RCC is the only one who is correct. If you think they are correct then you need to believe that indeed John was quoting the Latin version which was on the plaque.

I need you to tell me the Catholic Faith? You can be very funny at times.

So you are saying that John would have used the Greek version then someone else translated it into Latin? Are you so intent on not believing what scripture says that you are going to revert to the ridiculous?

Up until Jerome, all Catholic Scripture was in Greek.

I think it would be best to discontinue this conversation. It’s starting to feel like I’m discussing this with a delusional and it’s wasting my time. Believe as you wish. Have a nice day.

Dr. Phil sez hi:

[metmom]

Go to the Hebrew. not the greek.

Why? The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

She was made sinless to be the vessel that held God. Jesus could not be born in a vessel corrupted by sin.

Chapter and verse?

Also, tell me how MARY could have been born of a sinful and sin filled mother then.

Metmom: with all due respect. we cannot discuss further if you insist on verification by scripture alone. This was not the way of the Ancient Church.

It was the way of Jesus and it WAS the practice of the early (book of Acts) church.

The Catholic Church both East and West held Holy Tradition to be at the same level. Not every oral teaching of the Apostles was included in the Canon.

Then there's no way to verify it and it becomes unreliable, no more than hearsay.

I've asked several Catholics to provide those traditions to which Paul was referring when he told the different churches to hold to the traditions he passed down. Not a one has ever gotten back to me on that nor has anyone ever provided any sources to back it up.

FWIW, how do Catholics know whether or not those *traditions* to which Paul referred eventually got written down and became Scripture.

[MarkBsnr]

He told me.

Can you share the text message?

So I'm going to believe Him. You should try it some time.

I do believe Him. I'm just not assured that it applies to you, as you claim.

[MarkBsnr]

The first Bishop of the Church was James, “Brother” of our Lord. The first Church Council was held in Jerusalem.

Well, that sure shoots the RC version down in flames.

Wrong again. May I ask how many times you intend on erring?

[metmom]

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Before they came together, stating that there was an event where that happened.

Matthew 1:24-25 24When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Not, *never knew her*.

Aside from all the verses clearly stating that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and names some of them, these verses clearly state that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born.

Kind of makes you wonder what the RCC was thinking when it *wrote* Scripture to make that kind of faux pas.

If that's the best they can claim for *writing it*, how can we or why should we trust their ability to interpret it?

[metmom]

The difference is that we consider the oral traditions to be equal to scripture. Protestants as a general rule do not accept that point.

With good reason. Because it's not reliable and often teaches things contradicted by the clear, plain reading of Scripture.

[MarkBsnr]

Jvette: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.

mm:Hello!! Nobody ever said anything but that.

mm:You guys claim that all the time.

Show me where......

Any of the references to sola scriptura. Or solo; which are rarer.

For a start, you can go through my posting history to find it, although you will be wasting your time because I NEVER said that. But look away.....

You've never claimed sola or solo?

[smvoice]

The ORAL TRADITIONS that the Apostles taught (yes, even Peter) were put into writing and is said so by the Apostles themselves.

I Cor. 11:23: "..that which ALSO I [earlier] delivered unto you.." He tells the Corinthians he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them orally.

2 Thes. 2:5: "Remember ye not, that, WHEN I WAS YET WITH YOU, I TOLD YOU THESE THINGS?" He gave them in writing what he had previously told them orally. He elaborates and provides further understanding in his writing to them.

2 Thes. 3:6: "When we were with you, this [same thing] we COMMANDED YOU [orally]...".

And yes, even Peter:

2 Peter 1:15: "Moreover I will endeavor that ye may AFTER MY DECEASE TO HAVE THESE THINGS ALWAYS IN REMEMBRANCE." Obviously, he was saying that he endeavored to put into writing what he had taught them earlier orally, so it would not be forgotten or corrupted after his death.

[MarkBsnr]

THANKS! Curley Joe? Pfffffttttt. amateur.

End of their careers, Curly gone, they were promised some easy money and appealed to their egos.

My 12 and 10 year olds get up at 3 in the morning Saturdays to watch them for a couple of hours on Retro TV. The first time I went to the condo of my (now) wife, we watched the 3 Stooges over dinner and wine. Interesting juxtaposition...

[smvoice]

Well, if nothing else we are Mo-mates! I would give you a Mo-poke right now, if I could.;)

[metmom]

I did. It’s in John chapter three where it says *whosoever*.

That means *anybody*.

Even if God had put my own name in, if there were someone else with my name, I couldn’t be sure if it were the other person. *Whosoever* covers everyone.

[metmom]

This has been posted for Catholics before but since you apparently missed it the first several times, here it is again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).

Nobody has ever said any differently.

As a matter of fact, Scripture itself says that everything we need to know for faith and salvation can be found in it, even more specifically, the book of John.

John 20:30-31 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John himself admits that not everything that Jesus did was recorded,

BUT

the things that were chosen to be written down were done so so that someone could believe on Jesus for salvation.

This is the apostle John, You know one of Jesus closest confidants........

Now about that claim that you made earlier, you still have plenty of time to provide links to specific posts stating as such.

[smvoice]

This is what I’m talking about when I say the BASE must be established before we skip ahead 250 years. We’re into the FIRST GENERAL COUNCIL OF CHRISTIANS. What year was this? And the fact that James, “Brother” of our Lord cannot even be agreed on. These are all crucial to the church, for obvious reasons. Mary, can anyone say “Mary”.

[presently no screen name]

Peter was the Rock. Period.

God built His Church on the TRUTH of who Jesus is and that TRUTH was revealed by God to Peter. And that truth is ".. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".

God's Church is built on the rock of salvation - that is JESUS! "He alone is my rock and my salvation; He is my fortress, I will never be shaken." Psalm 62:2 "He only is my rock and my salvation: He is my defense; I shall not be moved. Psalm 62:7 What did Jesus come to do but to die for our salvation.

It's no wonder catholics are taught not to believe it's all about Jesus - the CC take Jesus out of His rightful place and insert 'man'.

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Tim 2:5. Catholism says no - Mary will go to Him. Jesus is The Word and those who believe on HIM have eternal life; yet, catholicsm teaches believe on our teachings drummed up by 'man' - that's the real authority.

Satan wanted Jesus to bow to him. Jesus said 'It is Written' - He stood on TRUTH. So, instead, satan now has others bowing to him by believing 'what is written' isn't enough - doesn't contain all the truth. What was perfect for Jesus, isn't enough for catholics. Just like Jesus isn't enough - by their not admitting it's ALL about Jesus. The blood of Jesus isn't enough to wash away your sins, catholicism teaches you still have to pay for them - Jesus didn't take them ALL away. The gift of salvation isn't enough - Catholicism teaches one needs works.

Satan has come to kill, rob and destroy and he has. But I have news for Him - the gates of hell won't prevail against God's CHURCH built on JESUS - THE WORD which is the FINAL AUTHORITY for like Jesus said It is Written. JESUS THE WORD and is the ONLY WAY, the ONLY TRUTH, the ONLY LIFE - always was and always will be. Man-made doctrine/tradition - which void God's Word - is the wide road which many follow.

[Judith Anne]

>>>>>>I do hope you get used to the bad jokes here, then. Those pursed lips are going to remain pursed...for eternity.

As if you know anything about it.

[presently no screen name]

how do Catholics know whether or not those *traditions* to which Paul referred eventually got written down and became Scripture.

Or are they saying the apostles speak with fork tongue? They wrote one thing and speak another? Not so strange - their traditions that oppose God's Word was somehow 'just spoken'. Deception begets deception.

[MarkBsnr]

Well, if nothing else we are Mo-mates! I would give you a Mo-poke right now, if I could.;)

Soitenly.