Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reformation Day – and What Led Me To Back to Catholicism
The Catholic Thing ^ | 10/28/11 | Francis J. Beckwith

Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: romancatholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,441-3,4603,461-3,4803,481-3,500 ... 3,681-3,685 next last
To: D-fendr

Why would the answer to where heaven is have to be in Genesis?


3,461 posted on 11/22/2011 6:06:45 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3456 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

So at what literal place is God’s right hand?


3,462 posted on 11/22/2011 6:06:56 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3460 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

The answer doesn’t have to be anywhere. If, however, one is a complete literalist, one can be found there.

Perhaps I’m jumping the gun here. There are very few real literalists. I should ask first if you consider yourself one and if so, what that means to you.

?


3,463 posted on 11/22/2011 6:09:18 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3461 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Do you even know what any of that is? What any of it means?

Duties of the Catholic:

The Duties/Obligations of Catholics as Listed in the Catechism

1. To attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation and rest from servile labor.
2. To receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year, if aware of committing a mortal sin.
3. To receive Holy Communion at least once a year, between the first Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday.
4. To observe the fast days and abstinence days established by the Church.
5. To contribute to the material support of the Church

The Duties of Catholics added by the U.S. Bishops

6. Obeying the Marriage Laws of the Church
7. Join in the Missionary spirit of the Church

These are not onerous duties and they are for the benefit of the believer. As stated earlier, when one neglects prayer, Mass and the reading of Scripture it is easy to fall away.

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

Again, remain close to the Church so as to avoid being lukewarm or to lose faith altogether and fall into agnostisism or atheism.

Can. 210 All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their own condition.

Gee, strive to be perfect. Isn’t that what Jesus said. Did he also not want us to make disciples of all nations? Are we not a part of the building up of the church?

Can. 211 All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every age and in every land.

Again, missionary activity, whether or not one travels or one never leaves their home city or country. Be a light unto the world so that they will give Glory to God.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

“He who hears you, hears me, He who rejects you, rejects me, and who rejects me, rejects the One who sent me.”

“As my Father has sent me, so I send you.”

The Council of Jerusalem is a prime example of this duty of a Christian to accept the teachings of the Church.

When Peter and James and Paul and the other Apostles met to consider whether or not the Gentiles had to be circumcised before receiving the Good News, they had nothing by which to base their “sentence”.

There was no NT Scripture, the OT certainly was silent on the matter. Therefore, they had to decide, based on what they knew of Christ’s message, what conditions or “burdens” would be placed on Gentiles when they became believers.

Prior to that council, they were circumcising the men who converted. But, following it, after the declaration of Peter and the testimony of Paul and Barnabas, it was their judgement that the Gentiles would have to follow some of the dietary laws, but would not have to be circumcised.

This was a totally new doctrine. A letter was written to be circulated and read to the different communities and all were bound to accept it.

Paul had to rebuke Peter when he was not living up to the decision of the council. Why? Because it was a binding doctrine.

Can. 222 §1. The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.

Last time I read ACTS, it very clearly said that all the believers contributed to the church to help the poor. Paul makes mention of collecting monies or contributions to take to Jerusalem for the believers there.

Is it error to hold Christians to that standard?

§2. They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources.

“Whatever you did for the least of my brothers, you did for me.”

Can’t imagine the error one could see here.

Catholics are indeed a community of believers that is universal and we are conscious of our duty to help all who are in need, whether through our contributions to the church for missionary work or charitable work.

If protestants find this to be error or something to be disparaged, then go for it.

I am not ashamed, nor will I deny my complete submission and obedience to Jesus and to His Church.

Any more questions?


3,464 posted on 11/22/2011 6:11:38 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3392 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

What Scripture led the Apostles to conclude that Gentiles would not have to be circumcised?


3,465 posted on 11/22/2011 6:14:02 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3393 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I don’t even understand your question. Are you asking if God has a literal right hand? And He is sitting on a literal throne? In a literal place named heaven? And Christ is literally seated next to God at His right hand? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. That’s why the Eucharist is such a ridiculous deception. Christ is seated now. Not up and down, in heaven, at Catholic Churches everywhere, every day, all day long, changing wafers and wine into Himself. But THAT you WILL take literally..Whatever is the opposite of the Bible is what your Church gloms onto and creates doctrine.


3,466 posted on 11/22/2011 6:15:02 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3462 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

God the Father has a literal right hand.

Where is it? How big? And His thumb?

Is it omnipresent?


3,467 posted on 11/22/2011 6:16:45 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3466 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

You should ask Mary. She is standing right next to Him, according to the RCC. Or is she NOT literally standing there, meaning she was NOT literally bodily assumed? Which parts of what the RCC teaches are literal and which are not? It’s very confusing.


3,468 posted on 11/22/2011 6:21:52 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3467 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

The question is about completely literal interpretation. Literal as opposed to not literal, metaphor, simile, allegory, etc.

I doubt there are few if any that fit this description. That’s the question.

That’s what I’m asking you. Yes, no??


3,469 posted on 11/22/2011 6:24:51 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3466 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

How about we postpone the whack a mole game a while longer here?

We’ve hardly established your degree of literalism yet. I believe that is the point under discussion.


3,470 posted on 11/22/2011 6:27:26 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3468 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
"Showing two distinct proven errors in books the CC uses is a straw man?"

Are now you claiming the ability to inerrantly determine what is legitimate history as well as what is legitimate Scripture?

My assertion is that "history" does not refute either the Deuterocanonicals or Exodus, but you are demanding that you get to choose when history trumps Scripture and when it does not. You need to pick a story and stick to it.

3,471 posted on 11/22/2011 6:33:51 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3445 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Again, is it completely literal interpretation of all Scripture for you or no? Is this your position?


3,472 posted on 11/22/2011 6:40:34 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3466 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

That was a miscomprehension of my post, which was not about what Rome requires and does not require, not about souls not having a “right” to believe Rome has the same level of authority and believability as Scripture itself, although i obviously hold they are wrong in believing that.

As for the second issue, i cannot answer for all others, but i did not say or express that the contention was about RCs being Christians who love Christ imperfectly, in which i am sure i come short, but while ultimately it is about glorifying God by being saved and worshiping in Spirit and in Truth, yet my post was in response to a fellow Protestant, and whom i presume was responding to an RC about what is required of them, and thus i provided material from Rome.

As rather than re to an RC and sowing discord, what i did was report on discord that exists, without help from me, and offer this reasonable reply.

And rather than these contentions starting because some OP began a proactive attack on Rome, most of them are in response to RC promotions of herself, or because they cannot resist attacking Protestants, though sometimes it happens the other way around.

But in answer as to why evangelicals do contend against RCs, while evangelicals in general do not hold all RCs are lost, yet based upon doctrine and personal experience i think they overall see most as never having had a manifest day of salvation/regeneration, while they attack us as if we need salvation.

And thus the conflict, but if you fault us for contending for truth and the salvation of souls in this regard, then you must explain why your side does the same, especially when Rome now holds the baptized Prots are children of God with them. Though as in some other things, some RCs disagree.

I trust this addresses your objections.


3,473 posted on 11/22/2011 6:41:44 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3437 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
No, how about you answer my question: Is Mary LITERALLY in her ASSUMED BODY LITERALLY STANDING next to CHRIST on His throne?

THAT is the point of the discussion. What is to be taken LITERALLY, and what is NOT. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven, was that a LITERAL third heaven he was caught up to? In The Revelation did John LITERALLY SEE the things that Christ told him he was going to SEE? "Write the things which THOU HAST SEEN, and the THINGS WHICH ARE, and the THINGS WHICH SHALL BE HEREAFTER;" Rev. 1:19.

3,474 posted on 11/22/2011 6:46:23 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3470 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Jesus quoting the Deuterocanonicals not good enough for you either? Hmm.

Jesus never made a "direct" quote of them, no. Nor did he ever refer to any of them as from God even IF he made allusion to them. No "thus sayeth the Lord". No "it is written". Hmmm...

The Septuagint is a Jewish Bible and they were in the Jewish canon. There were several different versions available for the various Jewish sects. The deuterocanonicals were not removed until the anti Christian Council of Jamnia which was convened in order to separate Judaism from Christianity.

The Jewish theologians NEVER accepted the Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphal books as in league with Divinely-inspired Scripture. I have given many links that prove this. I can't force you to read them, nor believe them, but you have not given comparable sources that prove what you assert. This "Council of Jamnia" that you term "anti-Christian" and which you claim was convened to separate Judaism from Christianity lacks historical references or any proof of what you claim. There are more than a few links that would help you to get an education about this council rather than being wholly dependent on what your leaders say. From the link http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm we learn:

In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.
It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.
They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD. They desperately don't want to be bound to following the Bible. Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders feel that re-writing history to suggest the canon of the Jews was not fixed until after the Jewish system was abolished in 70 AD, is as absurd as it is wishful thinking. Think about it, only after God destroys the Jewish religion, do the Jews get a fixed canon.
There was clearly a fixed canon long before Jesus was born and when Jesus was tempted by the Bible three times, he did not reply, "human, man-made church tradition says Satan" Rather all three times Jesus replied, "It is written", (Matthew 4:1-4) referring to the Old Testament canon. In other words, the Devil didn't ask, "Written in what?" for everyone, including even the Devil knew what books were included in the Old Testament.

Additional information from http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia says:

The Council of Jamnia or Council of Yavne is a hypothetical 1st century council at which it is postulated the canon of the Hebrew Bible was defined. Some time before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai relocated to the city of Yavne/Jamnia, where he received permission from the Romans to found a school of Halakha (Jewish law).[1] His school became a major source for the later Mishna, which records the Tannaim, and a wellspring of Rabbinic Judaism. In 1871 Heinrich Graetz, drawing on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, concluded that there must have been a late 1st century Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century, but from the 1960s onwards it came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of Graetz's sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions of the rabbis were about canonicity at all.

Heinrich Graetz introduced the notion in 1871; based on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, he concluded that there must have been a Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of Jack P. Lewis, Sidney Z. Leiman, and others, this view came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely.

Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in second-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim.[4]

Jack P. Lewis wrote in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. III, pp. 634-7 (New York 1992):
The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion.

You really need to do a better job if you want to do more than just make unqualified assertions. That kind of "scholarship" doesn't do so well here.

3,475 posted on 11/22/2011 6:51:18 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3391 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

And yet that same search for the truth led me to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. (From the Protestant side!)


3,476 posted on 11/22/2011 6:52:22 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
What is to be taken LITERALLY, and what is NOT.

If you ask that question seriously, then you are not a complete literalist.

And yes that is the point. You started on me with:

it seems the very Book you are studying is not one the Catholic Church takes literally. What good is Bible study if the Book you are studying is not considered the truth?

I.e., literal interpretation = truth.

I'm questioning what your commitment to literalism is that you consider = truth.

Completely? Or not? Is everything in Scripture to be interpreted completely literally or do you ask: "What is to be taken LITERALLY, and what is NOT?"

Before your first position is successfully argued, let's not go on to another.

Simple question: Is your position that only a completely literal reading of Scripture is true?

3,477 posted on 11/22/2011 6:58:24 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3474 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
The Bible is not a book that says one thing and means another. The passages in the Bible have one simple meaning, for the most part. In the few parts that have a double meaning, it is clear, either from the verses themselves or from parallel verses. It is a divine collection of various forms of history, biography, poetry, literature, proverbs, hymns, letters, laws, directions for holy rituals for worship, parables, riddles, allegories, prophecy, mystery unveiled. From beginning to end. God's Plan for Mankind. It is to be taken literally unless the opposite is obvious. A parable, for instance. Allegories, riddles. But the literal is unmistakable. If the Holy Spirit is in you and leading you in His Word for mankind.

Any questions?

3,478 posted on 11/22/2011 7:02:20 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3472 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; CynicalBear

This is what happens when one rejects the authority and reliability of Scripture; science becomes the standard by which Scripture is measured as if science is truth.


3,479 posted on 11/22/2011 7:05:51 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3430 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

Amazing isn’t it? And yet, only one of us can be right. Unless we are following the same gospel, the same Jesus, and have the same spirit. Maybe so. Maybe not. It’s the gospel of your salvation that saves. Nothing else. That’s the only thing that matters. For eternity. ;)


3,480 posted on 11/22/2011 7:06:16 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3476 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,441-3,4603,461-3,4803,481-3,500 ... 3,681-3,685 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson