Filed Under: Faith

July 16, 2020

Wow, I forgot about this post I wrote 3 years ago. It is still the best answer I can give to why I became Catholic.

Why did I leave the Evangelical church and join the Catholic Church? Because without the Sacraments administered by the Church, especially the Eucharist, I was in a long-distance relationship with the Lord. There was something missing. I had always heard his voice in Scripture, but it was only after experiencing Him in the Sacraments that I began to intimately know Him and be fully satisfied in Him.

July 16 2017

“From its very beginning Christianity has been the proclamation of joy, of the only possible joy on earth.” – Alexander Schmemann

Before this year, I was, for the most part, a satisfied Christian. However, if I am totally honest, I was a bit bored, and most of the time, I had a “fake it ’til you make it” approach to Christian joy. Missions, or bringing others to Christ, was my main purpose in this life, but what did it mean to experience Christ once you found him? “Scripture, Christian prayer, fellowship, and more mission,” would probably have been my answer, but it still felt like I wasn’t totally satisfied.

(I am going to stop here for an important note: Please do not misunderstand me. I absolutely did have a “personal walk with Jesus Christ”, but my approach to pursuing it, the very approach that all of my Christian mentors had taught me (again, knowing Christ personally, personal Scripture reading and prayer, fellowship, telling others about Christ) was still leaving me coming up a bit hungry for something more. I was enjoying all of the gifts that my Evangelical Christian faith had given me, but I still felt like it was missing some part of the joy of the Christian life. I am sure that I am not the only Christian that has been in this position.)

“Joy, however, is not something one can define or analyze. One enters into joy. ‘Enter into the joy of thy Lord’ (Matthew 25:21)…” –Alexander Schmemann

About a year ago, I started asking a lot of questions, and my questions began with Sunday morning. What is the purpose of church? What seemed to be the purpose of my church? What was the focal point of our Sunday worship? What is the summit of the Christian experience? Yeah, “worship” feels like it should be the answer, but when I looked at how we spent our Sunday mornings, the focal point of the service (and where the majority of time was spent) was an expository Bible teaching. Good, but is that really the summit of the Christian worship service? I really hope not. And if “worship” really is the summit of Sunday worship, what form should this worship take? In my mind, it started to seem like celebrating the Lord’s Supper was the most explicit way to celebrate Christ and his sacrifice on the day that is most explicitly meant to be celebrated as the “Lord’s Day”.

Months later, I am convinced that celebrating Christ in the Eucharist is the summit of the Christian life, of Christian joy.

“Joy, however, is not something one can define or analyze. One enters into joy. ‘Enter into the joy of thy Lord’ (Matthew 25:21). And we have no other means of entering into that joy, no way of understanding it, except through the one action of which from the beginning has been for the Church both the source and the fulfillment of joy, the very sacrament of joy, the Eucharist.” – Alexander Schmemann

Every week, I am so so so excited to go to Church on Sunday and celebrate Christ in the Eucharist! I enjoy it so much that I will even go during the week, whenever my schedule allows. I would honestly go every day if I could. Never in my life have I ever wanted to go to a full-length “church service” more than once a week, until now. Sacred Scripture, prayer, Christian fellowship, and mission all point us to Christ, but I have realized that the truest way to experience Christ is in his church, with other believers, singing, praying, and reading the Scriptures corporately, and ultimately, celebrating the Eucharist.

I know this may sound crazy to Christians that are not used to hearing about the “Eucharist”, and I get it. I would have thought it sounded crazy most of my life, until a year ago, when I actually looked into it for the first time. I would challenge anyone who feels this way to “come and see” (John 1:46). Commit to observing the liturgy, the Catholic Mass three times. Come with me, go with a friend, or go on your own. I think you may be surprised at what you find.|

“The Eucharist is the entrance of the Church into the joy of its Lord.” – Alexander Schmemann

When considering the Catholic faith, one of the first teachings I examined was the doctrine that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the communion meal. When I did this, I was surprised what I found: the doctrine made sense. I wasn’t immediately convinced, but I had to at least acknowledge the Catholic interpretation of Christ’s words in John 6 and other chapters was reasonable and fair. Slowly, though, I realized that the Catholic view was not just reasonable-it was true.

Now that I am a Catholic, I recognize that the Eucharist–this gift of Christ’s true presence in the bread and in the wine–is the most intimate, most profound, most powerful gift that we have as Christians. It is truly the source and summit of the Christian life. I desire nothing more than that my Protestant friends and family will come to share in this precious gift.

Jesus Christ – John 6:1-14; 25-71 – AD 90-110 AD

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Takeaways:

The miracle of the five loaves and two fishes recalls the miracle of the manna in the desert. This is important, as the Jews recognized that the Messiah would come as the New Moses, and that he would once again provide bread from heaven. The miracles of the manna, the five loaves and two fishes, and the Eucharist are all linked.

When Jesus explained that he is the bread from heaven, the Jews grumbled. When Jesus clarified his meaning, he didn’t explain away what he had said as symbolism. Instead, he doubled-down, calling his body, “Food indeed” (true food)” and his blood “drink indeed” (true drink).

The specific meaning of “to eat” in verse 54 is literally “to chew” or “to gnaw”. Why would Jesus use this language, accept to accentuate the true, literal meaning of his words?

After this episode, many of his followers left him, and even his closest disciples struggled to accept this teaching. Why would this be the case if Jesus had merely been speaking metaphorically?

Saint Paul – 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 – AD 53-57 AD

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

Takeaways:

Paul warned to carefully examine oneself before receiving the body and blood of Christ, as receiving it in an unworthy manner would be profaning the body and blood of Christ. This warning implies that the communion meal is truly and literally the body and blood of Christ.

Paul goes on to say that he who eats and drinks without discerning the body brings judgement upon himself. Again, this implies a literal interpretation.

Finally, Paul points out that receiving the body and blood of Christ in an unworthy manner has caused some to fall ill or even die. How could a mere metaphor or symbol have this effect? Again, this implies that the communion meal is truly the body and blood of Christ.

Didache, or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” Michael Holmes Translation (See also online: Roberts Translation ), Chapters 9, 10, and 14 – Circa 100 AD

Chapter 9. The Eucharist.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows. First, concerning the cup:

We give you thanks, our Father,
for the holy vine of David your servant,
which you have made known to us
through Jesus, your servant;
to you be glory forever.

And concerning the broken bread:

We give you thanks, our Father,
for the life and knowledge
that you have made known to us
through Jesus, your servant;
to you be the glory forever.

Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one,
so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom;
for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: “Do not give what is holy to dogs.”

Chapter 14. Concerning the Lord’s Day

On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks*, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.

*(The Greek word here is also a variation of “Eucharist”)

Takeaways:

The Eucharist was a central part of early Christian worship.

It was Holy.

In order for their sacrifice to be pure, one ought to have first confessed their sins. Again, this is much more reasonable when one understands that to receive communion is to receive the Holy body and blood of Christ.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6b-7, Roberts-Donaldson Translation – Circa 110 AD

But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Takeaways:

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Saint Ignatius warns believers against those who do not maintain the true teaching of the Gospel. Saint Ignatius is likely referring to the Gnostic heretics, who believed, among other things, that the material world is evil, and that Christ never took on flesh. For this reason, they also rejected the idea that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist. This should be alarming to any Christian who does not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ, as they may find that they have more in common with Gnostic heretics than with the Early Church.

Saint Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 66 – Circa 100-165 AD

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, (Luke 22:19) this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Takeaways:

It’s hard to add a takeaway here. Could it be any more clear that the early church saw the Eucharist as Christ’s precious body and blood?

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise on The Lord’s Prayer, Chapter 18

18. As the prayer goes forward, we ask and say, “Give us this day our daily bread.” And this may be understood both spiritually and literally, because either way of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation. For Christ is the bread of life; and this bread does not belong to all men, but it is ours. And according as we say, “Our Father,” because He is the Father of those who understand and believe; so also we call it “our bread,” because Christ is the bread of those who are in union with His body. And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ’s body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, “I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” (John 6:58) When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ’s body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.” (John 6:53) And therefore we ask that our bread — that is, Christ — may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body.

Takeaways:

This is one of my all-time favorite quotes on the Eucharist. The Early Christians valued the Lord’s Supper so greatly that they desired to receive it daily.

Gospel of Luke 24:28-35

So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons, Sermon 235.2-3

Ah yes, brothers and sisters, but where did the Lord wish to be recognized? In the breaking of bread.

Before becoming a Catholic, there were a number of Catholic doctrines that I thought were clearly contrary to the Christian faith. I had been taught that these doctrines were not found in Scripture, and that they were foreign to the faith of the early church. I could not have been more wrong.

I now recognize that there are so many things in Scripture that I hadn’t noticed. I thought of Scripture primarily as a systematic theology textbook, one which would explicitly and plainly tell me everything that I could possibly know about Christian life and doctrine. My assumption was that the Holy Spirit was all I needed to guide me.  I didn’t understand the degree to which Sacred Scripture is subtle and nuanced (on, for example, the doctrine of the trinity, or Christ’s two natures in one person), and I failed to realize that Christ had not only sent the Holy Spirit to guide me, but had also founded a visible Church.

Since joining this Church, there are so many patterns in Scripture that have come alive to me. I now want to focus on one at length: the primacy of Peter among the apostles, and the specific authority that Christ gave him as leader of the Church on earth.

Peter’s Primacy in Scripture

As a start, who are the twelve apostles? Let’s look at Scripture:

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

-Matthew 10:2-4

Now during those days he went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

-Luke 6:12-16

So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

-Mark 3:16-18

When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.

-Acts 1:13 (Judas Iscariot, having taken his own life, is obviously now omitted.)

If you are wondering why I just listed four Scripture references that all basically say the same thing, it is because I wanted to point out a pattern: when ever the apostles are named, Peter’s name always comes first. (For another example, see John 21:2.) That might seem arbitrary, and maybe it would be if it were the only argument for Peter’s primacy, but this is one, small clue out of many. Any one piece of evidence may seem insignificant on its own, but when examined as a whole, Peter’s emerging status as the leader of the apostles becomes clear.

When you look closely at the Scripture, you’ll also notice that Peter speaks up much more often than the other apostles, and that he often voices the questions or opinions of the group:

Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?”And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”

– Mark 8:27-29

Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for everyone?”

– Luke 12:41

Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” 

– John 6:66-69

Many passages also start out with “Peter and the disciples…” (Mark 1:36, Mark 16:7, Luke 9:32), and it is Peter whom the tax collectors approach to ask if Christ will pay the temple tax:

When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the temple tax?” He said, “Yes, he does.” And when he came home, Jesus spoke of it first, asking, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?”When Peter said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the children are free. However, so that we do not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook; take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a coin; take that and give it to them for you and me.”

-Matthew 17:24-27

Again, it may seem insignificant that Peter is mentioned more than the others, that he is named explicitly while the others are simply referred to as “the apostles”, and that he speaks up more than the others. But we also see that among the twelve, Jesus seems to show special attention to Peter, James, and John, often taking them aside at important moments:

The raising of Jairus’ daughter
When he came to the house, he did not allow anyone to enter with him, except Peter, John, and James, and the child’s father and mother.

-Luke 8:51

The transfiguration
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white.

-Matthew 17:1-2

Christ’s agony in the garden of Gethsemane
He took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be distressed and agitated.

-Mark 14:33

Christ was especially close with Peter, James, and John. Not only does he pull them aside on occasion, but these are the only three apostles that Christ renamed.  In Scripture, names are often very meaningful, and when God himself gives you a new name, it always signifies a special calling or vocation. Remember that Abram, “Exalted Father,” becomes Abraham, “Father of Many Nations,” and Sarai becomes Sarah, signifying that she will be the mother of many nations. Jacob, “Supplanter” becomes Israel “God prevails,” Saul, “Asked for, Prayed for” becomes Paul, “Small, Humble,” James and John become Boanerges, or “Sons of Thunder,” (perhaps because they asked Christ if he wanted them to rain down fire on a Samaritan village? cf. Luke 9:54), and Simon, from the Hebrew, “listen,”  becomes Kepha, Aramaic for “rock,” which in the Greek New Testament is rendered, “Petros.”

Beyond the unique attention that Christ shows Peter, James, and John, we also see Christ mentoring Peter in a special way. At this point, it is appropriate to bring up the most well-known passage that is used to argue for (or against) Peter’s primacy:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

– Matthew 16:13-20

Even without worrying too much about what exactly Christ was referring to when he said, “and on this rock I will build my church”, this passage clearly shows that Peter was given a special role among the apostles. Even if you were to omit, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” you still have Christ telling Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” When taken with all of the other passages that mention Peter (some I have already cited, some I will cite in following paragraphs), the context is clear: Christ is preparing Peter to be a leader among the apostles, and a steward and shepherd for the Church. Christ is the Shepherd and the Head of the Church, but in this passage, Christ is referring to Isaiah 22:20-23, where the Lord made His servant Eliakim steward of the kingdom of Judah, giving him the “key of the house of David,” with which “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” It is to this role of stewardship that Christ refers when he gives Peter “the keys of the kingdom.”

Interestingly, it is only after Christ appoints Peter as leader that he begins to tell the disciples that he must lay down his life. It is immediately after entrusting the Church to the disciples, led by Peter, that he begins to speak about this clearly with them:

(Continuing from the previous passage)
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.”  But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.

– Matthew 16:21-23

I bring up this passage not only to make my previous point, but also to acknowledge that Peter was far from perfect. Not only does Peter deny Christ three times, but Christ also refers to him as Satan! Peter’s frequent failures should not be ignored, but they also do not change the role and responsibility that Christ gave Peter. In a way, it almost makes sense that Christ would choose Peter as the leader. After all, he is the weakest. As Paul says, “Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-29) If Christ were to name a leader of the apostles as an steward and shepherd, it should not surprise us that it is the weakest of apostles that he chose.

We continue to see Christ’s special relationship with Peter in Christ’s final days with his disciples. We see Him preparing Peter for leadership in a way that we don’t see with the other apostles. During his agony in the Garden, Christ tells Peter, “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32)

After his death and resurrection, we also see this conversation at the end of John’s gospel:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.”He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” 

– John 21:15-17

After Christ’s ascension, we see that Peter’s leadership in the days of the early Church continues:

It was Peter who “stood up among the brothers” and suggested that Judas Iscariot’s office of apostle be taken by another. (Acts 1:15-26)

It was Peter who addressed the crowd during the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, (Acts 2:14) and it was Peter who exhorted the first converts at Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you…” (Acts 2:37-2:40)

Peter performed the first healing of the Church age, (Acts 3:1-10) and we also see that, at one point, even Peter’s shadow had the power to heal. (Acts 5:12-16)

It was Peter who addressed the leaders of the temple in Jerusalem, both after the first healing (Acts 4:1-12), and after the apostles were first imprisoned. (Acts 5:27-32)

When Ananias and Sapphira’s deception is discovered, it was Peter who condemned them. (Acts 5:1-10)

Peter, along with John, went down to Samaria to pray for the new believers and lay hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)

When Paul traveled to Jerusalem to join the disciples, it was Peter (along with James) whom he sought. (Acts 9:26-30; Galatians 1:18-19)

When an angel of the Lord tells a Gentile named Cornelius, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God”, the angel tells him to seek Peter. It is Peter who then receives a vision from God illustrating that Gentiles are to be partakers of the new covenant, and it was Peter who ordered  that the Gentile believers with Cornelius be baptized. (Acts 10:1-48)

When disagreement arose among Jewish Christians on whether Gentile converts must be baptized, the question was deferred to the apostles and the elders, and the first Church council was called in Jerusalem. After there had been much debate, it was Peter who rose and made a decisive judgement. (Acts 15:1-21)

Clearly, Peter had an incredibly significant role in the early Church. Though he is far from the only disciple or apostle who is used mightily,  he plays a more prominent role that the other apostles. Even more interestingly, we see that Peter is often speaking with authority. Though he was certainly a flawed Christian and pastor (even needing a good scolding by Paul for his hypocrisy, see Galatians 2:11-15), the evidence for Peter’s primacy and leadership are clear in the Gospels and in the book of Acts.

Peter’s Primacy in the Early Church

Peter’s primacy is also very explicit in the writings of the Church Fathers. This is significant, because it represents the point of view that the earliest Christians held. When mentioning Peter, they consistently interpret Christ’s words in Matthew 16 as meaning that He will build his Church on Peter–not simply on Peter’s proclamation. They also recognize that Peter’s authority, and the passing on of his authority to his successors, is the guarantee of Christian unity:

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute (Matt. 17:27), quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” (Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28).

Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect.

Letter of Clement to James, Chapter 1 [A.D, 221]

Origen
And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.

Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]

Cyprian
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep (John 21:17), and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? 

The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis. (Acts 9:32-34). 

Catechetical Lectures 17:27 [A.D. 350]

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.

The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]

Ambrose of Milan
It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18). Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal. 

Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]

Jerome
‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ (Matt. 16:18). Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division. 

Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails.

Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. 

Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]

Peter’s primacy is clearly seen in Scripture and the writings of the early Church. What is more, the Church Fathers recognize that the authority of Peter and his successors was crucial to the Church’s unity. Both Scripture and the Church Fathers teach that Christ is the true Head of the Church, the Chief Cornerstone, and the Church’s foundation, but Christ the King appointed a steward, knowing that he would be physically absent from his people.  Much could be said about why Peter and his successors’ leadership is both practical and necessary for Church unity, but for now it will have to be enough to point out that it is both very biblical and undeniably supported by Christian tradition.

In Jesus Christ, God became man and ushered in the New Covenant. When his earthly ministry was nearing its end, he founded his Church and gave authority to the apostles, with Peter as his chief ambassador (In language echoing Isaiah 22:20-25). Jesus then began to tell the disciples of his coming death (Matthew 16:15-21). After his death and resurrection, he commissioned the disciples, sent them just as God had sent him, filled them with the Holy Spirit, and gave them authority to forgive sins. (John 20:21-23). He commissioned them to make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and teaching them all that he commanded them, and promised that He would be with them to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:16-20). The apostles authoritatively taught the faith in written form, which became the Sacred Scriptures (along with the Old Testament), and in oral form, which became the Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). This is reasonable that the faith was passed on using Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as we know from John’s Gospel that not all that Jesus said or did was written down, nor would it be possible to do so (John 21:25). The apostles then handed down this authority and tradition to other faithful men (1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 2:2).

This is the way in which the Christian Church has always understood that her Faith was passed on. That is, until the Reformers introduced the idea of Sola Scriptura.

Objections to Sola Scriptura

1. Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture. Scripture teaches that Scripture is authoritative (2 Tim 3:16), but Scripture does not teach that Scripture is the only authority in the life of a Christian or in the formation of Christian teachings. Scripture shows that the apostles and the leaders of the Church also have authority, and Scripture says that the Church, not Scripture is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Many times, Paul exhorted believers to hold fast to his teaching/his example (2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2). The Council of Jerusalem is the biblical model for resolving disputes and shows, again, the authority of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture and make binding doctrinal decisions. (Acts 15)

2. Sola Scriptura doesn’t tell us how to form a Canon of scripture, or that we even need one in the first place. It assumes that the canon of Scripture has always existed and that it has always been agreed upon. Neither is true. Instead, the Canon of Scripture, whether the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant canons are all a matter of Tradition.

3. Sola Scriptura does not provide a rubric for determining which theological doctrines are essential to the Christian faith, and which are not.

4. Sola Scriptura is inconsistent with how the early church functioned. Even after the writings of the New Testament were completed, Sola Scriptura was not held by the Church.

5. Sola Scriptura assumes Scripture is self-interpreting and straightforward. It also assumes that Scripture, without an interpreter, is enough to convey the Gospel. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) illustrates that Scripture cannot always be understood without a guide. In this story, even when a guide is needed, we do not see the Holy Spirit directly guiding the Ethiopian eunuch. Instead, we see that the Holy Spirit sent Phillip as this guide.

6. Sola Scriptura assumes everyone can read or ought to be taught to read. It also assumes everyone is intelligent enough to understand all of scripture. Even since New Testament times, the vast majority of all people have not been able to read or could not afford a copy of the Scriptures. If Sola Scriptura is true, Christians who cannot read cannot be sure of the authenticity of their Christian faith.

7. Sola Scriptura encourages private interpretations that abuse scripture, and then leaves no way to address or refute private interpretations except to present an alternative interpretation, which the abuser can simply choose to reject. There is no authoritative way to call out heresy as heresy. Sola Scriptura also encourages isolationism, where Christians attempt to practice their faith in private, with Bible in hand, but without the Church body.

8. Sola Scriptura makes obedience to Christian truths contingent upon private, time-consuming study, and therefore gives excuses for delaying obedience. Though Christians are commanded to study to show themselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15) and to always be ready to give themselves an answer (1 Peter 3:15), is it reasonable to expect that every individual Christians must confirm, for themselves, all Christian teachings?

9. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sola Scriptura encourages “interpretation-fatigue” where perfectionists who become overwhelmed by Scripture and doctrinal debates and simply give up caring, too afraid to misinterpret anything, and stop caring about doctrine altogether.

10. Sola Scriptura leaves no effective approach for resolving disagreements when they arise. When two interpretations disagree, the person who can argue their side better wins. More often, when two interpretations disagree, the two sides split into different camps who both think they are right, which eventually turn into different denominations, and the pattern continues.

11. Sola Scriptura argues that the Church Magisterium does not have authority to interpret Scripture because humans are sinful and fallible, but fails to recognize that this argument would disqualify individual persons from interpreting Scripture too. The Holy Spirit used fallible, sinful men to pen the words of scripture. Is the Holy Spirit arbitrarily limited to speaking authoritatively through men, but only when they are using the written word, but not when they are communicating or teaching in other forms or at other times? In the same way, Protestants who reject the teaching authority of the Church on the basis of personal sinfulness and fallibility seem to fail to recognize that they, too, are sinful, fallible men. Again, why is it reasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit can guide and protect the one from doctrinal error, but not the other?

12. Sola Scriptura plays upon our pride and sinfulness. It is tempting to think that the highest view of Scripture would be to leave its final interpretation to the individual, aided by the Holy Spirit. But what if this is actually the lowest, most self-centered, and most prideful way of viewing it? It is easy for us to see when other Christians who ignore the Holy Spirit and who twist Scripture to excuse their sin, but it is almost impossible for us to see it in ourselves. It is certainly true that the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer, but if the final, authoritative interpretation of Scripture is solely up to each individual person, how are we to be sure that our own sin and pride will not get in the way of us interpreting things when it is most tempting for us to do so? Certainly Catholics (including members of its Teaching Magisterium) are at risk of personal pride and sinfulness as much as anyone is, but it is for exactly this reason that we need an infallible source of interpretation that cannot be tainted by personal pride or sinfulness.

The Teaching Authority of the Church

The Church that Christ founded is the Catholic Church. He has given this Church authority to teach. He has given this Church His Holy Spirit to guide it, He has promised that He will never leave us, and He has promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church.

Just as Scripture must be infallible, so must the Church be in its authority to interpret Scripture.

A Final Note

As an Evangelical Christian, the hard part of changing my mind about Sola Scriptura had nothing to do with the doctrine itself. The challenge was not even that I had to admit that Christ gave authority to a church. Rather, the challenge was admitting that it was the Catholic Church in particular that had this authority. I would encourage Evangelicals to keep this in mind when thinking about Sola Scriptura. If an Evangelical finds the arguments against Sola Scriptura are not persuasive, that is fine. I would ask, though, that they reflect, at least in passing, on whether the great inconvenience of Sola Scripture being false has some impact on their perception of the arguments against it.

When I was 14 or 15, I decided that it was time to decide if I really believed in God. I already considered myself a Christian and had made a decision to give my life to Christ, but I wanted to be sure that my Christian faith wasn’t just something that I had made up in my head or only believed because of my upbringing. It seemed reasonable and necessary to ask for myself, “Is Christianity true?”. If there was a God, I wanted to serve him, but if there wasn’t a God, it would be reasonable to admit it to myself and move on with my life. And so I devoted a few months of free time to this question, reading books by Christians and atheists alike, talking to Christians and atheists, praying, and thinking. In the end, I became convinced that there was a God, that Jesus Christ really was God in the flesh, that he really did rise from the grave, and that the Scriptures that bear testimony to him are trustworthy.  Satisfied, I continued in my faith. That wasn’t the last of my questions, though, and answers were not always easy. I continued to ask, “Is this true?” of different doctrines that I had either grown up with, or had come across since then. Sometimes I reaffirmed the beliefs that I had grown up with. Other times I rejected the doctrines I had been taught, and instead accepted the view that seemed to be more in line with Scripture. Many times, I admitted that I simply didn’t know the answer.

In the fall of 2016, I realized I needed to ask, “Is this true?” of the Evangelical Protestant tradition that I had been raised in. Though it had occurred to me to ask this of Christianity as a whole, as well as of specific Christian doctrines, it hadn’t occurred to me on my own to ask it of my denominational tradition and interpretative framework. And as I started asking, “Is Evangelical Protestantism the truest form of Christianity?” instead of assuming that it was the truest Christianity, I started getting very different answers than I had previously. This was (and sometimes still is) a terrifying experience, but it has also been the most exciting time that I have ever had in my faith.

This blog is a collection of some of my thoughts that I have had along the way. I’ll be posting (with some minor editing) things that I have shared on social media in the past, but I’ll also be including previously unshared thoughts from my journals. Once I’ve finished most of my posts about thoughts leading up to becoming Catholic, I’ll switch to primarily writing about Catholic doctrines for those who are interested in learning more.

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” (John 14:25-27 ESV)

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15 ESV)