becoming catholic: part 4

Disclaimer: When it comes to matters of faith (and matters of Catholicism in particular), emotions run high. It is a topic on which many have strong bents, preferences, and biases and regarding which particular views are held strongly. In many circles, there is much in the way of fear, misinformation, and outright antagonism when the topic of Catholicism is broached. I do not claim to speak in any official terms about matters Catholic, I claim only to speak for my own experience and journey. That being said, things may be introduced or stated in this series of posts which directly impacted my decision to convert. The purpose of stating these things is not to exact judgment on anyone or to incite anger or division, but only to provide reasoned explanations for why I now freely and deliberately chose to become Catholic.

* * * * *

CLARIFICATION: The actual number of Protestant denominations is a number that is in dispute (some sites referencing numbers around 9,000), depending largely on the methods used by those who are doing the counting. I have amended the previous post in which I cited a total of 38,000 Protestant denominations (a number projected by some for 2010). The sources I referenced treated each individual non-denominational church not affiliated with any formally defined denomination as a "denomination" unto itself. According to this (non-Catholic) site, these types of churches comprise just over half of 34,000 Christian denominations counted. The post has been amended to reflect a range.

Read Part 1 here
Read Part 2 here
Read Part 3 here

* * * * *

Conversion.

The first time I contemplated the word in relation to Catholicism, it was a little over three years ago. If I'm already a Christian, why do they say I'm converting? The word left a bitter taste in my mouth. If I was honest, my pride was offended.

To apply the term to myself was to take on an aspect of humility I had not yet encountered in my Christian walk. I was raised in a Christian home and accepted the truth of the gospel at an early age. Assenting to the truth of Christ's lordship when I could count my age on one hand wasn't quite the feat of humility and pride-swallowing that it had become in my later twenties, and now in my early thirties. I was educated, and I knew my faith well. And now they want to call me a convert?

But moving between the worlds of any branch of Protestantism and Catholicism requires conversion in every sense of the word. It's a different way of thinking and praying and worshiping. It's a different way of understanding God and the world and our place in it. It's a different way of being and living the Church.

Gulp.

Convert. And now I embrace the word and wear it happily, wondering what in the world took me so long.

* * * * *

Scripture & Tradition
In my last post, I left off discussing some of the reasons why Sola Scriptura doesn't work, not being a belief expressed in Scripture itself, nor being a belief held by the early church or the early church fathers. While I believe the intentions of the Reformers were good in wanting to ensure that Scripture as an authority was not lost or superseded by any other authority not put in place by God, I am now convinced that eliminating the authority of the Church to teach and interpret was a misguided move.

So if it isn't Scripture alone, then what else is held as authoritative? Catholics believe in what is often referred to as Apostolic, or Living Tradition. This tradition is believed to have been handed down by Christ to the apostles, with the understanding that that it is to be continually passed down through the ages of the church. Instead of being something that competes with Scripture for authority, it is an authority that is meant to uphold the very truths that are written there.

In one of his letters to Timothy, Paul writes:

"I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."
1 Timothy 3:14-15, NASB, emphasis mine

Paul states it here quite clearly: part of the Church's function is to act as the pillar and support (some renderings use buttress or foundation in place of support) of the truth. The Church's role is to uphold and undergird, or support the truth. The idea of being a foundation lends to the notion that the Church is foundational to a proper understanding of the truth. Without the Church, in other words, our understanding of the truth will be vulnerable and subject to collapse, just as a building without a foundation.

The following claim shouldn't come as a terrible surprise, but may strike some readers as incredibly bold for me to say: there are things pertaining to our faith that were not written down in Scripture. Allow me to explain. We shouldn't suppose that the Old Testament prophets had their entire prophetic careers in print, nor that the oral commands of God to His people were any less authoritative because they were not received in writing. Or else Elijah's prophetic career was not worth much at all, and Obadiah's lasted a grand total of about three minutes. Abraham, though without any written form of the law, was obedient to God's commands and did not once respond: Can I get that in writing? In the same way, the church has traditions that were to be carried down and transmitted orally that were to be regarded as being of equal authority with anything that was written. Take a look at the following passages from some of Paul's epistles:

"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
2 Thessalonians 2:15

"We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us."
2 Thessalonians 3:6

"I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
1 Corinthians 11:2

"So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."
2 Timothy 2:1-2

In the first passage, we see that Paul instructs the Thessalonian church to hold fast to the traditions as he passed them on -- not to let them go. This command holds true, Paul says, regardless of how the tradition was delivered, either in written or in oral form. Later in the same letter, he issues a warning against those who would deviate from these traditions: Shun them, is what he says. It is evident that keeping the traditions Paul speaks of is a matter of great importance.

In his letter to the Corinthians, we see him commending the church for holding to the traditions, just as he handed them on -- exactly what he instructs to the Thessalonian church. Keeping the traditions Paul passed on is a good a praiseworthy thing in the mind of the apostle. And finally, in his letter to Timothy we see that this is not something that was meant to be passed down for just a generation or two, but to be kept in perpetuity. Paul instructs Timothy to pass on to reliable men the instruction he received from Paul himself ("what you heard from me"), so that these men will be able to instruct others also. These traditions aren't something that should be abandoned at any point, but should be honored and promulgated in the life of the church.

Keep in mind that this is Saint Paul writing these words, an apostle who, as far as I know, is highly regarded no matter what brand of Christianity one professes. He writes these words about tradition repeatedly to different people and churches. This isn't a lunatic, or a heretic, but someone who was faithfully discharging what had been commanded of him. And this is what he is saying, again and again: Keep the traditions as I passed them on to you. Hold fast to the traditions. Whether written or spoken, stand firm and keep the traditions. Call me crazy, but this caught my attention.

But isn’t “tradition” a dirty word?
A lot of Christians have a negative response to the mention of tradition, and not without good reason. Christ Himself spoke negatively of the rabbinic traditions in Matthew 15. When the Pharisees come to Jesus and complain that the disciples do not keep the traditions of the elders (i.e., washing their hands prior to a meal), Jesus issues a word to them about how in keeping their own traditions, they break the commandment of God. In particular he accuses them of approving the financial offerings of those who, in so doing, neglect the care of their parents, and so dishonor their fathers and mothers. Basically, they spiritualize irresponsibility. "You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition," he says in verse 6. Those are strong words against tradition, indeed.

So what are we to make of Paul's instructions to maintain tradition? Between the tradition of which Jesus speaks in Matthew and the tradition Paul speaks of in his letters, it would appear there are at least two types of tradition being mentioned here (since we know Paul would not be contradicting Christ). Jesus rejects the rabbinic traditions, or the traditions of men, but Paul is commending a different kind of tradition altogether to the churches to which he writes. This apostolic tradition has its roots not in the apostles themselves, but from the authority which Christ conferred to them. In other words, these traditions that are being passed on by the apostles came from the instruction of Christ Himself.

Tradition & Authority
If Luther was in error when he presumed to have his own authority to change some of the most foundational things about Christianity, it would be equally erroneous if the authority claimed by the apostles was one they assumed upon themselves. But the Catholic church in claiming apostolic authority as it has been handed down via the apostles does not claim to have authority from within themselves, but from Christ Himself. I know this is going to sound strange and brash to some Protestant ears, but keep this in mind -- it's only ridiculous if it isn't true. The apostles did not presume this authority in and of themselves; Christ gave it to them and we see Him conferring it to them in the Gospels (specifically the power to "bind and loose" mentioned Matthew 16 & 18, and then the power to "forgive or retain sins" in John 20). This form of tradition (Apostolic, or Living Tradition) distinguishes itself from the type of tradition Christ condemned by being from God, and not having its origins with men.

Many are quick to point out the following in an attempt to refute the notion of Apostolic authority: Peter denied Christ. Three times. He flaked out. He was brash and bold and often spoke too soon. The other disciples were fighting amongst themselves about who was to be the greatest in the kingdom, about things like who would sit on Jesus' right hand or on His left. After Jesus died? They were all frightened and in hiding. These were hardly heroic Christian virtues on display. And Christ would give this ragtag group of guys His own authority?

In a word: exactly.

Is it any more ridiculous that He would choose to love and adopt us as His own children, or yet that He still uses us to accomplish His mission on earth? It's not as if we are particularly worthy, either (except that His love makes us so). He didn't confer His authority to men because they were perfect, or because they were already so well equipped, or yet because He couldn't do it better on His own. They were the ones He chose, and that was enough. In the same respect, Jesus doesn't call us because of how accomplished we are or because of anything we have done or can do for Him, but because He can do something through us. That is a gift from a gracious heavenly Father, allowing us to participate in His mission here on earth.

To the disciples, he says:

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
Matthew 28:18-20, emphasis mine

The command to the disciples is to go into every nation, baptizing them, and instructing them to observe all He commanded of them. We are fortunate to have so many of Christ's words and teachings written down in the gospels, but do you suppose that in His three years of ministry, things were taught and commanded that were not written down? When he commanded the apostles to go and to preach and teach what He had commanded them, they didn't have a Scripture to reference. Christ's words would not have been written down yet, at least not in the form in which we have them today. As the gospels were not yet completed immediately upon Christ's ascension, they would have had to use what they had received from Christ orally, and of course, the books of the Old Testament. Even after the resurrection and prior to the ascension, we know that Christ continued to provide His disciples with instruction:

"In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. ... While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for 'the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak ...'"
Acts 1:1-2, 4, emphasis mine

What follows here is purely my conjecture and not an academic opinion, as far as I know. This is just me being curious and asking the question (I figure it can't hurt to wonder): What if, in those days between His resurrection and His ascension, Christ was laying down the plans and the groundwork of the church? Christ did say in Matthew 16 that He would be building His church, not that He expected the apostles to build it on their own, so it naturally follows in my mind that He had a specific plan for it. No one builds without a plan. What if the content of the instruction to the disciples that Luke is writing about in those short statements of Acts 1:1-2 is just that: Jesus' own blueprint for the church?

It's a big what if?, I admit. Again, this is just me wondering. Whether or not this was the content of His instruction, the truth remains that those best equipped (and chosen) to put hands and feet to Christ's command were those who received His words directly. They sat, ate, walked, and ministered with this man for three years. They reclined at table with him and witnessed his miracles. They saw him in moments that were common, quiet, mundane. And I believe that those words of Christ to which Luke refers in those opening verses of Acts, whatever they may be, those things that are not written down for our review, are just as authoritative as those that are penned for our instruction.

Scripture & Tradition: Both are needed
While a faithful Christian should always be devoting himself to the study of Scripture, I realized that it still remains true that an authoritative text demands an authoritative interpretation, or else the whole thing crumbles. If you recall, one of the assumptions made with Sola Scriptura is that scripture is "perspicuous and self-interpreting." This would be wonderful if it were true, but the fact that we have as much doctrinal confusion and disparity as we do and as much division as over doctrinal differences should indicate to us that this claim is questionable at best. Though I don't believe it was their collective intent, the Reformer's declarations of Sola Scriptura gave rise to a subjectivism never before seen in the history of the church. The last post contained a number of quotes from Luther's own contemporaries (people who were Reformed Christians themselves) that described the confusion and despair of the general populace at hearing so many conflicting teachings on what was right and wrong. Similar confusion exists today throughout Christendom as a whole.

Moreover, it seems pretty clear that while the early Christians devoted themselves to the preaching, teaching, study, and reading of Scripture, they didn't practice Sola Scriptura in the same sense that the reformers were teaching. In the earliest days of the church, the New Testament was still in the process of being composed (if you recall, the Canon of Scripture was not formally defined until late the the 4th century AD). They would have had the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT (which would have included the seven deuterocanonical books) and the epistles likely would have been circulating amongst the churches individually or in small groups. They did not have the compiled volumes of the Old and New Testaments like we do.

There is also additional positive evidence that the early church held to this two-streamed approach of Scripture and Tradition. We can see in the writings of the earliest church fathers that the early church upholding this apostolic, or oral, church tradition and regards it as being of equal authority with the Scriptures.

St John Chrysostom, Commentary on 2 Thessalonians:
“'Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter' (2 Thess 2:15). Hence it is manifest that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things UNWRITTEN, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore, let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no farther."

St Augustine, Letter to Januarius, AD 400:
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church."

While the writings of the early church fathers are not equal to Scripture in terms of their authority, they do give us as good a picture as we can hope for as to what the life and practices of the early church actually were. They are such a gift to us! Through these writings we can learn of how they understood the teachings and commands of the apostles who were closest to Christ's teaching. And the two that I quoted here (St. John Chyrsostom and St. Augustine, two men that are highly regarded in most sects of Christianity) were far from being alone in this opinion; several other of the respected early church fathers understood the apostolic tradition to be authoritative including: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and many others. At the very least, this whole idea of tradition is a truth in Scripture and in the history of the church that demands to be reckoned with.

What I found a little ironic as I was studying Sola Scriptura, the Reformation, and Apostolic Tradition was that even if someone were to hold strictly to Sola Scriptura, you somehow still end up with that the tradition Paul speaks of as being authoritative. It is in the text and even in the context of the passages cited, there are no conditions of time or place in regards to holding to it. There are some Protestant scholars who answer this by arguing that tradition was only authoritative until the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., or until the completion of the New Testament. To which I just have to ask: Where does it say that in the Bible?

Though the notion of tradition was one to which I was resistant when I first encountered it three years ago, it is something now that is a tremendous comfort to me. I remember when I was about eight years old, lamenting how many different kinds of churches and Christian teachings there were. As I matured, I became aware of how Christians argued and fought over the same passages of Scripture, how each claimed his interpretation was superior to another's interpretation. They were all well-educated, and I still believe they had the best intentions. But I would still look at my Bible, knowing it was the same one they were all reading too, and would wonder what had happened to the injunctions toward unity, loving one another, making every effort to live in peace with others, and humility. It made it seem as though being right or winning the argument became infinitely more important than obeying these particular commands from the same Scriptura. Yes, it was important to know what was right and what was wrong. But did there have to be a body count on the way toward learning what this was?

What I've come to love about my Catholic faith is that there is still such a marked reverence for Scripture. I have been encouraged to continue my reading and personal devotion. I am still encouraged to study, to reason, and to think. That has not changed. Scripture is still honored and upheld as the very breath of God. But in addition to that, there are teachers who have had the Holy Spirit passed down to them through a lineage traced all the way back to the apostles who can teach and interpret authoritatively on what it means, not only in the time and place in which it was originally written, but also in the confusion that is the United States in 2010. I think we need this: a clear voice amidst the din of voices that can say: This is the way. Walk in it.

Additional/Recommended Reading:
Faith of the Early Fathers: Three Volume Set, compiled by William A Jurgens
By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Sacred Tradition by Mark Shea
Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the sole rule of faith? Audio CD by Steve Wood

becoming catholic: part 3

Disclaimer: When it comes to matters of faith (and matters of Catholicism in particular), emotions run high. It is a topic on which many have strong bents, preferences, and biases and regarding which particular views are held strongly. In many circles, there is much in the way of fear, misinformation, and outright antagonism when the topic of Catholicism is broached. I do not claim to speak in any official terms about matters Catholic, I claim only to speak for my own experience and journey. That being said, things may be introduced or stated in this series of posts which directly impacted my decision to convert. The purpose of stating these things is not to exact judgment on anyone or to incite anger or division, but only to provide reasoned explanations for why I now freely and deliberately chose to become Catholic.

Read Part 1 here
Read Part 2 here

Definitions & Context
In this post, I refer frequently to the university town of Wittenburg. Wittenburg is the town in Germany where Luther posted his 95 theses to the door and that was the starting place of the Protestant Reformation.

* * * * *

Well ... what about Orthodox? Or Anglican?

We had heard this question a lot when telling friends about the change upon which we had embarked. As if deciding to become Catholic was the worst or most ridiculous thing we could have done. I remember talking about it with one of the sponsors for the RCIA program in which I'm currently participating, a convert herself. Ah yes, she said. The ABC question: Anything But Catholic.

So this wasn't anything new. Though I appreciated the concern demonstrated toward us, I was also saddened to see people who know us well imply that we hadn't thought any of this through, or that if we hadn't checked out everything else first, we were doing ourselves a disservice. It's not as if we were in a buffet line of religions, trying to choose what was most palatable to our preferences. It wasn't just a liturgical service or the smell of burning incense we were after; we were seeking out faith in its fullness. Though I can't speak for the twenty or so others in my group who are taking these steps of conversion with me, I am becoming Catholic not simply because I find it the most palatable, but because I am deeply convicted that this is the Christian faith in its fullness. And that means that (as far as we're concerned) there is no other choice.

I know it sounds ridiculously bold to say that. And believe me, I know how it sounds to non-Catholic ears. And yes, I know plenty of people who have objections to that, who disagree vehemently, or those yet who paint in broad stokes of ecumenism that say this really doesn't work for me, but I'm so glad it works for you.

But it's only ridiculous if it's not true.

* * * * *

The question of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone
Before I launch into my personal study of and response to Sola Scriptura, it is important to define terms so that we're all on the same page with what I mean when I say it. The below definitions provide complementary and adequate description of what I mean when I refer to Sola Scriptura:

Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.
-- Wikipedia article on the Five Solas of the Reformation, emphasis mine

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness
-- Wikipedia article on Sola Scriptura, emphasis mine

NOTE: I will also add that to treat this subject adequately, you would need at least a book or two. Maybe six. As such, this is going to be a super condensed treatment of sola scriptura. As always, you can refer to the links at the end of the post to start in on some deeper reading.


The Protestant case
Luther made a bold claim when he claimed the Church's leaders were without the authority to teach and interpret -- that the Bible was the only infallible source of faith and morals for the Christian. Some proclaimed this move a return to orthodox Christianity (where "orthodox" means: correct belief; conforming to the beliefs/creeds of the early Christian church), but it is misnamed "return" when this claim was a new one in the history of Christianity. The apostles didn't teach it, and the church fathers never espoused the concept.

I couldn't find any Scriptural support for the doctrine from Luther himself, but there are plenty of pastors and theologians today that are defending his claim. In many of the Protestant texts we read and debates we listened to, 2 Timothy 3:16 is often cited as a support for sola scriptura:

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

I have no argument with what this text is saying: all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for all the things listed. Amen! Some serious equivocation goes on, however, when "all" comes to mean "only" in the mind of the reader. It is rather simple to show that all and only mean very different things. Consider the following statements.

Only men are professional baseball players. All men are professional baseball players.
Only women give birth to babies. All women give birth to babies.

All and only are not the same thing. So where else might the support for this doctrine be? If Sola Scriptura is so fundamental and foundational to Christianity, if this really is an orthodox belief, and if this particular belief is to provide the foundation for every other belief, then there must be other texts in Scripture in support of it, right? Or else it does not meet its own standard.

In our study of this particular doctrine, we weren't really surprised to learn that there is nothing in Scripture -- not a single verse -- that teaches sola scriptura. Fortunately, this did not result in any cataclysmic or earth-shaking shocks for either of us. Neither James or I were particularly attached to this sola since we had yet to see any church truly live and worship in a manner befitting "the Bible alone." Even the strictest "Bible only" churches have traditions and practices not found in Scripture. Now don't think that not believing in "the Bible alone" means we take a low view of Scripture, or that we somehow think of it as less than the breath of God Himself. There is no doubt in my mind that Scripture is divinely inspired, authoritative, and instructive. It is a principal authority in the Christian life, but not the only one, as Luther claimed. There is not a single verse or passage in the Bible that teaches it.

In other words, sola scriptura fails to meets its own criteria.

This doesn't boil down to a mere difference of belief that we can just shake off and label something sweet and pithy like "diversity." Beliefs have real-life consequences. Shortly after Luther's death, while Wittenburg was still fresh in the throes of the Reformation, one public servant called Wittenburg "a stinking cesspool of the devil." Holding this view did have then (and continues to have) some very significant consequences. All manner of division and of morally questionable practice became justifiable. For example, Luther said that since Scripture did not expressly forbid it, polygamy was perfectly permissible.

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

De Wette II -- a translated collection of the letters of Martin Luther, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330

This went well beyond talk. Martin Luther did grant the Landgrave Philip of Hesse permission to take a second wife since while still married to his first wife, he was "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication." I cannot locate the reference (so take this with a grain of salt), but I did read in relation to this case that Luther considered polygamy a mercy to the first wife since her husband was so oversexed. With no Scripture explicitly forbidding it, plural marriage was, in the mind of Luther, absolutely permissible.

It doesn't end there. There are also popular Christian teachers today who say that masturbation is perfectly acceptable, since the Bible says nothing against it. And where does the Bible speak to human cloning, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, and the like? Are we to presume that these things are acceptable because the Bible does not mention them? There are even Christian denominations saying there are circumstances which make abortion morally acceptable, because they are not expressly forbidden in the Bible. And this is the result of us all reading the same, "perspicuous and self-interpreting" Scripture?

Chaos and division result
It didn't take long for the effects of the Reformation and Luther's solas to have a profound effect. Even during his lifetime, Luther and others keenly felt the fallout of his new doctrines. "There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads," he once lamented. Though I doubt it was his intent (it seems for all intents and purposes, that he wanted just one Protestant church), people took Luther's teaching to the bank, claiming the Holy Spirit's authority and styling themselves to have new, competing, but authoritative doctrines. Every new self-styled Protestant leader that popped up anathematized the others for not holding to his own particular doctrine which was (you guessed it) based on Scripture. And since sola fide meant good works counted for nothing, morality became a real free-for-all. It was utter chaos.

"Nowadays we hear voices in all directions praising up the enemy" (i.e., the Catholics) "and justifying these eulogies on the ground that owing to the want of unity among our preachers, it is impossible to know what it is right to believe. This tendency is augmented by the cries of agitators bent on stirring up insurrection. The papists, at any rate, it is said, agree among themselves, and so do even the Turks. We Protestant Christians, on the contrary, are at ceaseless war together, fighting one another with frenzied, implacable hatred, while every breath of new opinion scatters us about like a whirlwind."

-- Matthew Blochinger (professor at Wittenburg, approx. 1560, quoted in Janssen, History of the German people at the close of the middle ages, Volume 7, p. 278)

"Of reverence for the aged, there is no trace left among the young; they treat them with the uttermost contempt. The world is at its last gasp; the day of judgment cannot be far off; all the energies of the Church and of society are dormant. In consequence of the interminable dissensions between theologians and preachers, the populace no longer knows on which side the real truth lies. The papists cast in our teeth the iniquity of separation from the Church. I know well how great this sin is, and that we cannot sufficiently grieve over it. But I know also that simple souls are so sorely perplexed and bewildered that they are in doubt as to where truth is to be found, and whether there is still a Church of God in existence which can be distinguished from the unbelieving multitudes around them."

-- Georg Major (Lutheran theologian of the Reformation, quoted in Janssen, History of the German people at the close of the middle ages, Volume 7, pp. 277-278)

"Our evangelical Church is so marred and disfigured throughout with terrible rents and blemishes, that its appearance altogether belies its vaunted character. If you look at the evangelical teachers you will see that some of them, either from ambition, or jealousy, or presumption, crush out and destroy the true doctrine and propagate and protect false teaching; others twist and bend religion to suit their own tastes or the requirements of their overlords or of the people; while yet others, who have really preached the truth, counteract all their teaching by the frivolity and profligacy of their lives. If you turn to the evangelical congregations, you will see lamentable abuse of religion and of Christian liberty; you will see contempt and want of veneration for Church worship, disgraceful contention, shameless squandering of Church goods, ingratitude towards the faithful ministers of the Word, decay of all morality, unbounded insubordination among the young, and a most abundant daily growth of every imaginable vice."

-- Paul Eber (professor at Wittenburg, 1560, quoted in Janssen, History of the German people at the close of the middle ages, Volume 7, pp 276-277)

I provide these quotes not to tell you how awful the Reformation was, because though misguided (in my opinion), I think the motives behind it were good. There were abuses and misapplications of doctrine taking place in the Catholic church, no doubt. But no matter how good the intentions were, there was some terrible fallout that was the result of new doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide (or, "faith alone," which I will discuss when I get to the issue of justification). Before I researched this in any depth, I had never heard of this before. I had always heard the Reformation described in purely noble and heroic terms. But this is the other side to the story.

Even as a young child, the lack of unity in the church troubled me. I saw Baptist, Catholic, Unitarian, Assemblies of God, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and so on. Every one taught and worshiped differently, and every one believed the way they did it was the "right" way. Just a few hundred years we are not any better off; we have anywhere 9,000 -34,000 Christian denominations and counting (depending on which resource you consult), all teaching something different, but all claiming to preach and teach the "Bible alone." We easily have at least as much confusion and chaos in Protestant theology now as they did in the early years following the Reformation. Even then, and much more as this journey progressed in recent weeks and months, I was asking myself: Is this really the way it is supposed to be? Is this what Christ meant when He said, "I will build my church"?

If it's not Sola Scriptura, then what is it?
Oh, but this leads into another blog post entirely. It wasn't my original intent to leave this unresolved; I really wanted to combine the two, but it just got waaay to long. I'll be dealing with what I learned about the Catholic approach of Scripture + Tradition in the next post. And lest you think I've forgotten something important or am trying to claim the Catholic church is, was, and has always been perfect, I'm not quite done yet. I don't want to ignore or overlook the abuse of the system of indulgences toward which Martin Luther had valid objections, and which the Catholic church itself was seeking to reform. I'm getting there. Again, there just wasn't room here to treat it adequately.

In the next post, I will move beyond why Sola Scriptura doesn't work and explain how I've come to understand and appreciate the Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition and how it's actually a really good thing for the Church to have (and there is Scriptural support for it, to boot).

* * * * *

Got questions?
There is a method to my madness, I promise. I'm hitting the foundational "big stuff" first before I get into the questions people typically have like What about the pope? What about praying to the saints and Mary? What about purgatory?. But are you wondering about how I have come to understand a particular point? Though a bona fide Catholic nerd now, I'm no expert, but I will do my best to explain what I know (and try to find out what I don't know). Feel free to drop a question in the comments on this post, and I'll address it in an upcoming post in the near future.

Additional Reading/Resources:
Blog Post: Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority by Bryan Cross
(Note on this article: Very nuanced, thorough, and academic. Excellent stuff!!)
Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the sole rule of faith? Audio CD by Steve Wood
Reformation or Revolt? Audio CD by Steve Wood
Luther's own statements concerning his teaching and its results (available online through Google books)

A quick word about Steve Wood
Please just let me plug the above Steve Wood CDs listed above. Wood is a former Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism and really worked through all of these questions himself, so he understands both sides of this very well and is very sympathetic and respectful toward Protestant listeners. He is an absolute pleasure to listen to, has spent oodles of hours in study with the material he presents, and really has a gift for taking complicated concepts and making them understandable for the laity (i.e., us!!). If you're interested in finding out anything more about Sola Scriptura or the Reformation, I couldn't recommend these CDs more highly. I may even do a giveaway of his CDs ... who knows??