North of the Shire

For someone who had never heard of Jesus Christ, if we were to simply give them the Gospels and tell them to come back with any questions they might have, I’m sure there would be a host of questions.

When did this all happen? About 2000 years ago. Was this for real, as in where, what part of the world? In present day Israel for the most part under rule of the Roman Empire. And so on. But what we would find with many of the initial questions would be an anchoring of the events in the Gospels into what we know of history from other sources.

Eventually the question might come up; What happened to these guys (referring to the disciples of Jesus)? Well, first of all, we could offer the Book of Acts, which would be of some help but it wouldn’t cover all of the Apostles. What happened to Jesus’ mother? Likewise the information would be sketchy at best from Scripture. In other words, to the answer the questions, like in the first instance regarding historical context, we would need to refer to outside historical sources such as are available.

Suppose then, our student of the Gospels asks the very pertinent question as follows; Jesus promised to build a Church…did he, and what happened to it? Of course, we would have to show how in the Book of Acts, the Church began at Pentecost and spread throughout the region and as far as Rome through the evangelization of Paul whose travels we read about. That is how Jesus built his Church, through the ministry of his apostles and their converts. But as to the last part of the question, what did happen to the Church?
For at least a partial answer we might look at the letters of Paul to the various churches at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Thesallonica, Galatia and so on. We would at least get a picture of how early the Christians needed correction and encouragement. But to follow the Church past the time of Paul would we not need other sources?

And even if we would want more detail about their meetings and practices, would we not need other sources?

And even more, if we wanted to know how they interpreted the letters of Paul and the Gospels in their own preaching, as those documents became available, we would need other sources, wouldn’t we?

But then the question would arise; Since the apostles couldn’t live forever, who took over for them and how, by what process? Well, for at least a partial answer we could look at the letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus to understand the process and requirements for appointing Bishops and Presbyters (priests), but that wouldn’t answer the direct question of who did the appointing and when. For that, and the general history of succession we would necessarily once more have to look to other sources.

But then, our sharp student asks a very pertinent question regarding, John Chapter 20 verses 22-23. So, when the apostles died, was their ministry of reconciliation, the forgiveness or retention of sins, continued on, or was it deemed that the later Christians had no more need of forgiveness? (Well, as you can see, I have loaded the question, but it is still valid.) The answer is not in Scripture, but once again, easy enough to find from other historical sources.

So what then is this all leading up to? The example of John 20:22-23 is just one issue in dispute between Catholics and Protestants that came up in a conversation recently. The entire question and answer is simply to point out that much of what we know surrounding the life and ministry of Jesus beyond that which is written in the Gospels, is contained in historical documents, Church history and Church Tradition. (The capital “T” Tradition being that which has come down directly from the Apostles through the teaching authority of the Church and is considered as authoritative as the Scriptures.) This particular issue of reconciliation is one that detractors and anti-Catholics claim was “invented” by the Church and when confronted with John 20:22-23 generally claim that the forgiveness of sins there mentioned was for the Apostles only and died with them.

Which brings us around to the other point that I have been making. We can find out what it was that the early Christians were doing, beyond what is recorded in the Scripture. I find it quite interesting that certain groups of non-Catholic Christians every so often decide that they need to re-make their church and so go on a quest to make a “New Testament” church, or an “Acts” church. A noble endeavour perhaps, but if they were to simply seek out the facts they could save themselves a lot trouble and soul-searching. There actually was a New Testament Church and we can find out a lot about what that Church believed and practiced. There is a record of it.

But of course we know what the problem is, don’t we? That New Testament Church was Catholic and held the central doctrines of today’s Catholic Church as well as the core or seed of every other doctrine that the Catholic Church today has clarified throughout history. All of this is accessible information.

The reticence by most to embrace the teachings of the Church as the actual original teachings of the Apostles has to do with one thing. Traditions of men. It is the one thing that Catholics get accused of the most yet it is the root of the anti-Catholic’s greatest stumbling block. And most don’t even know it.

The average anti-Catholic apologist or crusader will claim that he got his knowledge and theological opinion from the Scripture. In fact, he generally adheres to the Sola Scriptura doctrine. Yet, if we were to get truthfull answers in an examination of his life, we would find that he didn’t think up his opinions from reading Scripture. Rather he heard the whole package from someone else, who in turn heard it from someone else. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is what is called a tradition. In other words, the particular interpretation of Scripture that is required to deny the ongoing ministry of forgiveness in the Church through the successors of the Apostles is a tradition in and of itself, and a much more recent one, I might add. Moreover, the plain sense of Scripture would not inspire this interpretation were it not necessary to make a cohesive, coherent package based on the denial of Church authority in the first place. This is really not an interpretation so much as a contortion, in the same way that the interpretation of Jesus’ discourse on his body and blood in John 6 as symbolic is pretzel logic.

What is somewhat mildly irritating is to face a young energetic proponent of these theories, particularly one who was baptized a Catholic as was a recent aggressive anti-Catholic I spoke with, who genuinely believes that he has been “led” by the Holy Spirit to think this way, rather than “fed” this by a tradition. He has no more discovered this than I did before I became Catholic. The problem is for the anti-Catholic, if he allows for tradition at all, if he is honest about the origin of his ideas, then there is a direct competition and comparison of traditions and the Catholic wins, hands down. The record is clear.