Final Duck or Close To It

OK – we are coming down the home stretch in lining up all the mental, spiritual and emotional ducks regarding my move to the Catholic Church. (This particular duck on the left looks delicious).  For those of you that have been reading and have hung in with me, I am grateful!  For those of you who are bored beyond tears, well – who can blame you?  Sometimes I am ready to gnaw off a limb myself. Or a wing.  But take heart – other topics are on the way.  Maybe next time we’ll talk about jazz, recipes or the disappointment that was the NY Giants this season.

This is the church history portion, which is a little different from prevous posts. Up untill now, much of this has been very personal and subjective. But church history is more objective.   And granted, this short sketch of the earliest years is overly simplified for the sake of brevity. But it is a rich subject, and if anyone wants to know more, plenty of information is available. This will be a little longer than usual, but hang with me here.

Back in the earliest days of the church as the Gospel was being spread, there was no defined New Testament, no authoritative body of writings. Some of the Gospels were in circulation in the 50s and 60s, as were Paul’s letters and others later on – but nothing was yet recognized as being God-breathed Scripture beyond the Old Testament.  It was all just out there.  Tradition was largely being passed along orally, from apostles to the next church leaders. Paul refers to this when he mentions “tradition” in 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6 and other places. The Greek word paradosis is understood as not simply referring to the writings but to the wider tradition regarding church practice and body life that the apostles wanted to communicate.

This tradition that was being passed along orally and in writings helped the early church’s liturgy to develop.  Church practices and hierarchy were forming according to the apostles’ teachings.  The church as we understand it was slowly taking shape. Some of these things wound up in what we now know as the New Testament, but not all.

How do we know that all of this apostolic teaching was being passed on faithfully and without addition or subtraction?  First of all, the earliest church fathers were in conversation with the apostles. Ignatius was taught by Peter.  Polycarp was taught by John. And there were others. Linus, who was also part of the next generation, was known to be a companion of Paul.  And so on.

Even more importantly, these early church leaders were incredibly passionate and jealous for the truth, and guarded against ANY change in the apostles teachings. Nothing got past these guys that was not in keeping with what they had received.  A friend of mine referred to them as “truth Nazis”.   If you need any proof of that, remember: these are the leaders who helped to shape and define what we now have as the NT.  They were the ones who fought against the many heresies in the early church related to who Jesus was, the nature of God, and other issues.  It was they who fully articulated the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ and others, only partially spelled out in Scripture, that we now hold as central to our faith.  These were the people who fought tooth-and-nail for doctrinal purity.

Every time you pick up your NT, recite the early creeds or talk some of the major points of theology, you are recognizing their work and affirming their zeal for the truth.  We are grateful for their dedication and their vigilant defense of the faith.

At the same time, it is in the writings of these very leaders that we also see references to the sacrifice of mass, the real presence Christ in the Eucharist and other things that have come to be known as "Catholic" ideas and practices. While these ideas were not fully articulated yet, they are very much there in the earliest writings. 

Remember, these early church leaders would reject, in a heartbeat, anything that did not totally conform with the truth they had received.  So in other words, these “Catholic” ideas were part of the tradition that had been passed onto them from the apostles.

This is why for me any many others like me, our reversion or conversion to the Catholic Church has its roots in the facts and flow of church history. It is how I and others try to connect with the earliest church and its practices. It helps us to line up with the first generations of believers.  I think if more Protestants understood that, it would help to break down some of the unfortunate misunderstandings that sometimes exist between Protestants and Catholics.

I want to close with three things that have made a big impact on me in this area.  The first comes from Protestant theologian Carl Trueman, in a review of Noll and Nystrom’s  Joint Declaration Of Justification, and he mirrors what other Protestant writers have also concluded:

“…Roman Catholicism is, at least in the west, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any other Protestant denomination…we need good solid reasons for not being Catholic." 

Second, Chuck Redfern is my best friend since college days, and was a committed Christian before we met. He was instrumental in helping me to get established in my faith as a Protestant believer.  He remains a Protestant and is a pastor and writer. He wrote this to me as I was making the transition (slightly edited with his permission):

"I was praying in a Catholic church once (I took the open door and the empty sanctuary to be an invitation), and it struck me: This is 'the Church' meaning, this is the Church that goes back 2,000 years and from which we all sprang….Protestantism was not God's 'Plan A.'  The Reformation was necessary, alas - but that doesn't deny that the Catholic Church is, honestly, the 'mother church', the church in which the others were birthed. " 

Lastly, this one is even more meaningful to me. A brother in Christ and good friend, whose church I was leaving, was bothered by my decision and confessed to not understanding why I would do this.  Yet, as a spiritually mature guy, he decided he would talk with me rather than just stew. So we met for dinner one evening recently, and had a great discussion. I laid out the points I have been making in these blog posts, and how God has been leading me.  In the end, he said (paraphrasing): “This is not something I would do, but it now makes sense to me. I get it, and I wish you God’s best.” We are the brothers we have always been, and that is what is most important to me.  I am grateful for how he approached this, and hope that others would do the same.  I am always willing to talk.

I feel a summary blog coming on before I let this all go, desiring to grab the various strings from these last four posts and combine them into some neat arrangement. But we’ll see.  Or we’ll talk Giants, provided I can keep it from becoming too morose (that would be an act of grace for sure!).  If I do, I will smoke some duck and all are invited.