Showing posts with label tradition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tradition. Show all posts

19 April 2010

becoming catholic: part 6

Becoming Catholic icon

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 4 here
Read Part 5 here
Note: You can also click on the "Becoming Catholic" icon above to see the entire series

* * * * *

There are so many places I could go from the places in my journey I've already covered. I could go into the primacy of Peter and his seat, I could talk about the Catholic teaching on justification, or any number of other Catholic doctrines. Studying these things changed and shaped my view of the Christian faith and were deeply transformative along the journey. And no doubt about it, these issues are substantial when it comes to matters of the Christian faith.

I could explain to you even more of what I learned, but I'm not sure that is the most beneficial. If you really are curious, I could point you in the direction of resources that were helpful for me and not at all to difficult to digest and understand, or send you the drafts that I've written on these things (I'm not quite done with the one on Peter and his seat, and it's already at five pages single-spaced. Yikes). As much as these things changed me, I'm not sure I want to write essays aimed at proving some Catholic doctrine or another. You can get better material than I can produce elsewhere.

So for now, I thought I'd focus on some of the key things that drew me to the Church. These things, beyond assenting to them intellectually, pulled me and drew me in. These are the things that appealed to me. I'll be doing a fair amount of comparison with my experience as a Protestant. Keep in mind that when I speak of my experience of evangelical/Protestant Christianity, that's what it is limited to -- my experience. Depending on variations in background, denomination, and so on, someone else may claim a very different experience. If that's the case, that person is free to write his/her own blog post about it. Amen.

The Sacraments
Where I had grown up with only two ritual practices (baptism and communion), there are seven sacraments in the Catholic church. In truth, I'm not sure I ever heard these referred to as "sacraments" in the Protestant tradition in which I was raised. In addition to baptism and communion (or, the Eucharist), Catholics have the sacraments of confession (also called "reconciliation"), marriage, holy orders, confirmation, and anointing of the sick. Each of these could have a rather lengthy blog post about its significance, so I'll just touch on how some of these sacraments drew me.
What's a sacrament?
I'm so glad you asked! The following definitions are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):

“Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.” (CCC 1084)

“Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies.” (CCC 1127)

Baptism
I was baptized when I was 14 years old, so it was not necessary for me to be baptized again. The Catholic church recognizes baptisms from other Christian churches that employ the trinitarian form (i.e., "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"). It was affirmed to me repeatedly that I was already one with the Church in my baptism.

Eucharist (Holy Communion)
Oh, how I love the Eucharist!! This one really could take up volumes. Without getting into the finer theological points of it, I grew up in a church that believed communion is a memorial meal: a remembrance of the death of Christ (depending on the Protestant tradition in which one worships, there are variations on this belief). I think the most we ever had communion was once a month. Catholics believe in the real presence; that is, once consecrated, that the bread and wine become by the power of the Holy Spirit the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Catholic believers everywhere are united in sharing the body and the blood, able to take in and assimilate Christ's body in a physical way.

This may sound odd or even sacrilegious to some -- I know it did to me the first time I heard of such a thing. But read Christ's discourse with the disciples in John 6; observe the behavior of those who leave, offended at His command to eat His flesh and drink his blood (the Greek word for "eat" in this passage literally means to gnaw on, or to chew). It's interesting to me that many who insist on reading the Bible literally make a particular exception for this passage. Considering the response of those present, it seems certain to me that Christ was, in fact, speaking literally.

Confession (or, Reconciliation)

This one, believe it or not, was a tremendous draw for me. I know that a common objection is Why can't you just go to Jesus? A man can't forgive your sins! And the truth is, a man in his own authority cannot forgive your sins. But in John 20, after His resurrection, Christ meets the disciples and breathes the Holy Spirit on them, giving them His authority to forgive or retain a person's sins. I've gone to confession. I've spilled my guts to the priest. I knew he wasn't going to hear anything from me that he hadn't heard already. And he nodded in understanding, and spoke the words of absolution over me. Remember the definition of the sacrament: it's a perceptible word or action that signifies and communicates the particular grace that is signified by the action taking place. In other words, the priest was, with the authority of Christ, communicating the grace of forgiven sin.

These were sins I had acknowledged in prayer and with contrition before Christ in private many times. But it was unbelievably freeing and healing to experience the hands of the priest cover me, affirming my sins are forgiven. I walked out of that place with a lighter step and such tremendous peace and joy. I heard the words aloud, I saw hands raised in blessing. I got to experience it in a very real and very present way.

Engaging the Senses
I've already touched on this in describing what draws me about the sacraments, but one thing that really drew me was how all of one's senses are used in the Catholic church. In my experiences as an evangelical, much of my experience was distanced from anything tangible or concrete. Prayers of confession were silent; I always trusted I was forgiven, but I never heard an audible voice affirming that trust. I took communion when it was offered, but it was just supposed to draw me toward humility and to help me remember Christ's sacrifice -- something I had never seen or experienced. Conversion meant "asking Jesus into your heart and accepting Him as your personal Lord and savior." It was evident in these moments that the Spirit was moving deeply, no doubt. But I longed for something with which to engage, something I could touch, taste, and feel.

As a Catholic, I get to experience and worship Christ with all my senses. When I see Him hanging on the crucifix in the chapel, I'm reminded of His suffering and sacrifice on our behalf, and I'm reminded of the consequences of my sin -- I put Him there, but still He allows me to identify all my suffering with His; it is not without purpose. I sing and respond during the Mass, and I hear the priest speak the words of consecration that Saint Paul wrote, straight from 1 Corinthians 11. I use my body: I stand when the gospel is read, and I kneel when the Eucharist is being consecrated. During the high days, I smell the incense, our prayers rising to heaven. Each time I enter the chapel, I bless myself with the holy water, which serves to remind me of my baptismal promises: to reject Satan, all His empty promises, and to affirm my belief in God and His church. During the Eucharist, I receive in my own body the flesh and blood of Christ, which in taste and appearance are like bread and wine. In confession, I confess my sins and hear the words of absolution from the priest, who is acting in persona Christi. In other words, my physical reality becomes saturated with graces that are otherwise intangible. I can hear Christ, see Him, feel Him, taste Him, and smell Him in the Mass.

History & Apostolic Succession
More than just possessing a love of history, I longed for a church with history: a body that had its rootedness in tradition, and in the ways and teachings of the apostles. I grew up in non-denominational Christian churches. I learned to love Jesus there, I memorized Bible verses, and I participated as fully as I could. I never questioned the power of Jesus, nor the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Bible was read, the Bible was taught, and everyone I knew sought to honor Christ. We did community outreaches, we sponsored orphans, we fed the poor. There were so many things the communities of which I was a part did well.

But as I got older, I recognized that there were things missing from my experience of church that were in the Bible: the breaking of bread for as often as we met together, anointing the sick, or any kind of confession of sins (you know: to another human being ... out loud, like it says in James 5). Sometimes I got the impression sin wasn't really that big a deal because hey, Jesus is a nice guy and He's going to forgive you anyway. And it really troubled me that my church taught something a little differently than my friend's churches, like the significance and importance of baptism, for example. I thought the view my church taught made the most sense, but how did I know it was really the right one?

The need for real God-given authority became evident when in my post-college years, this church experienced something I never thought I'd see. One of the associate pastors was fired (the man who baptized me and my siblings), and in a way that violated the church's own constitution. The leaders responsible tried to backpedal and cover it up by asking for this pastor's resignation after the fact, but the damage had already been done. We knew what had happened. When confronted with this information, the leadership of the church proceeded to chastise my parents in their own home, fire my Dad from his part-time landscaping job there (this was accomplished by a note in his last paycheck), and we were told that if we didn't apologize for saying that we knew what was going on and that it was wrong, we would not be welcome at that church again. In good conscience, this is not something we were able to do.

This is the church I was born into. This is the church where my family had poured out blood, sweat, and tears for the twenty-some years we had been there. And what could we do? We had no recourse, no court of appeal. It was one of the most hurtful things we ever experienced as a family. And after it happened to us, we met many others who had experienced similar trauma at the hands of other Christian churches. Though I had no idea what it would look like at the time, I recognized that some kind of authority was necessary, someone to whom teachers and leaders in the church were accountable.

The Saints
I'd be lying if I said that the men and women whom the Church recognizes as saints weren't a draw. I have often heard, Why can't you just look to Christ? and that is true. We can look to Christ (and we should look to Him) as our chief example. But I have something in common with these men and women we call saints: they were not the incarnate Son of God. They were like me. They were ordinary people who lived extraordinarily holy lives in the face of many challenges, in the face of opposition, in the face of tyranny. Some of them were martyred, some of them helped give shape to many of the foundational doctrines of our faith. All were faithful to the risen Christ. And the truth is, through this "great cloud of witnesses" we can see the power of Christ working through rather humble and ordinary folk.

Saint Agatha is the woman I chose as my confirmation saint (click on the link to read a brief article about her). I chose her because like her, I want to profess my faith unflinchingly even in the face of opposition and ridicule. God forbid I should ever face the torture and mutilation she did on account of her faith, but I certainly hope that regardless of the circumstances, I might stand firm and faithful to the end as she did.

Not rushing through Good Friday
I was really looking forward to my first Good Friday as a Catholic. In the evangelical/Protestant churches I attended, there would be a Good Friday service, and I would always go. The service would include reflections on Christ's suffering and sacrifice, sometimes a graphic description or representation of what Christ endured. Inevitably, the service would end with a reminder of Easter Sunday.

While I knew Sunday was coming and what that meant, I often felt a loss at not being able to properly mourn what Jesus suffered -- I felt rushed into Sunday before Friday was even over. Yes, we all know He rose on Sunday. Yes, we know He was victorious over sin and death. Believe me, I want to run toward that empty tomb as much as anyone! But please, in the name of all that is holy, allow me this one day to mourn what my sin did to Jesus. Let me feel it, let me mourn Him, let me sit with this for awhile. Let me feel the weight of what my sin cost Him.

This year, I finally got that experience. When we walked into the chapel, the glass etching of the risen Christ that marks the entrance was covered in black cloth. The altar was bare of its customary linens. The crucifix at the opposite end of the chapel was draped in a large red cloth. And the font of holy water was empty.

The service was a couple hours long, in which the priest and a couple of other readers took turns reading the entire story of the Passion from the book of John. Near the start of the service, I prayed for tears, for the grace to be able to mourn truly the loss of my Savior. Never has a prayer of mine been answered so quickly!! Somewhere in the midst of the reading, I started crying. Just a tear streaming down here and there, until I was sniffling and stifling sobs, until the backs of my hands were wet and salty.

Near the end of the service, the priest and the deacon went to the back of the chapel to remove the red draping from the crucifix. One arm of the cross was exposed, and then the next, and then the whole covering was removed. We were all invited to meditate on what it meant to venerate (i.e., show reverence for) the cross. Everyone took turns coming forward, some kneeling, some standing, some bowing their heads as they whispered their prayers to Jesus. I had no idea what I would do when I got there, I was so overcome. But when when our turn arrived, I knelt down in front of that cross, bowed my head, touched those pierced feet and wept. I just wept. We weren't there long, but I got a chance to tell Jesus how sorry I was, just to look at Him and say thank you, to grieve the death He died and the shame He suffered on my behalf.

The experience was emotional and cathartic, but also something more. In a very substantial way, I was able to grieve my Lord, able to recognize the gravity of sin, and able to experience the most overwhelming and infinite love of a God who gave His Son as a ransom for sinners. I was in every way, on holy ground.

And you know what? That made Easter something I could really celebrate.

* * * * *

Note: I've decided to wrap up this series with my next post, in which I'll address some of the common questions/misconceptions I've confronted and do my level best to explain (as succinctly as possible) the answers to those things. Thanks to all of you who have hung in here with me and read my insanely long posts! You honor me, and I am humbled.

03 April 2010

becoming catholic: part 4

Becoming Catholic icon

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