A New Catholic Reflects on the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation

October 27, 2017November 15, 2020 ~ Lorelei Savaryn ~ 22 Comments

500 Years

500 years ago some crazy business went down in the world of Christianity. And this Halloween, the 500th anniversary of that business, which we refer to as the Protestant Reformation, will be celebrated by some and mourned by others.

As someone who, just a year and a half ago, crossed the Tiber to become Catholic from a pretty solid Protestant background, all this hubbub about the 500th anniversary of the Reformation brings a lot of thoughts and feelings to the forefront for me as well.

I want to preface this article by saying that I have many amazing Christian friends who are Protestant. I love you all, and there is so much I look up to and respect about your faith. But the Reformation anniversary is hard for me, and my writing here details the reasons why my stomach sinks when I see posts celebrating what happened 500 years ago.

It’s the other side of the coin.

The Good Stuff, In Context

In some ways, I’m glad for parts of what happened. The Church did need some reforming at the time, and I believe that reform indeed occurred within the context of the Catholic Church. Some things were brought to light. Changes were made. Good changes. God changes. There is an excellent series by the Coming Home Network on the Reformation, and it touches on the components of the Catholic Church at the time that were in need of reform, along with many other social and cultural components that led Christianity to the brink of what became this massive division. It’s well worth a read.

I’m also thankful for the Catholic/Lutheran communications in recent years that are reopening the dialogue between us and paving the way for potential future reunification.

Sadness

But the rest of me feels sad about it all. About all the other repercussions. The unintended ones. The ones that are still sweeping through our world to this day.

I’m sad that so many of my Protestant brothers and sisters today are disconnected from the history of the Christian Church, with the exeption of some of the liturgical and high church denominations. There are many who can’t describe what worship looked like for the early Christians. The Protestant branch of the Christian church has, in some cases, moved so far from its roots that children being brought up in some Protestant denominations won’t even think that understanding those things is even a relevant question. We tread on dangerous ground when we forget our religion’s own Jewish beginnings, how those who lived in the time of Jesus practiced their faith, and those in the generations immediately following. When we forget the example set for us by those at our roots in the name of cultural relevance and keeping up with the times.

I’m sad that Luther is looked upon as a hero, but his very, very Catholic side is underplayed or ignored. On what authority can we say Luther had some things right, but not others? That his Protestant views were right, but his Catholic views were somehow errant leftovers from his Catholic days? The Reformation itself had absolutely nothing to do with some of his most Catholic views, including his beliefs about Mary and the True Presence (though his application of this belief became an area of division). Those things weren’t called into question until after Protestantism was born, until the church had continued to move far away from any authoritative source, eventually leaving thoughts on Mary to a few songs during advent and a statue in a nativity, and the foundational Christian belief in the Eucharist to Communion as merely a symbol.

Even John Calvin held some surprisingly, and often overlooked, Catholic views.

I’m also sad that Bible Alone Protestants don’t take issue with Luther’s interpretive addition of “alone” to the Bible when it speaks of being saved by faith. “Sola Fide” was not a thing until Luther himself made that interpretive decision and added that word. Was Christianity wrong on that until Luther came around? That’s a pretty big thing to have erroneous doctrine on for over 1,000 years if it’s true. And on what authority did Luther make the claim that all those years of Church history were wrong, but his own personal interpretation was right? I know there is a solid Biblical case for an authoritative source for interpretation, but I can’t find a strong Biblical argument that says each man is his own interpreter of scripture. God didn’t promise to preserve individual Christians in all truth- he promised to preserve the Church (John 16:13).

I’m sad that 30,000 plus denominations have split off since the Reformation and that this division was something Luther himself took issue with during his lifetime, writing:

“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet”(citation: De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, The Facts About Luther, 208.)

I’m sad that few of my Protestant brothers and sisters think it important to seek out the answer to whether Holy Communion is a symbol or the real presence of Christ (the sacrament Luther refers to above). That belief was held firmly by Christians from the time of Jesus until after the Reformation, and is still held by Catholics today. The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is, I believe, a challenge for anyone who views communion as a symbol. It’s an important question. A very important one. I know, growing up Protestant, that the True Presence is a completely foreign concept to many who live their entire lives only having been taught that it’s symbollic. It’s sad to me, and again affirms the problem of a Christian denomination being so entirely cut off from the historical roots of our faith.

I’m sad that misconceptions about Catholicism abound. By the end of this month, 10,000 people will have visited This Catholic Family’s blog in 2017. A small dent, joined with the work of many, many others, hopefully can help put honest yet loving faces to this faith that doesn’t need to be so much of a mystery.

So if you have questions. I’m Lorelei. I’m very Catholic. I love to talk about it. I know my faith, and read my Bible, and worship only God, and pray to God in Jesus name, and believe I am saved by God’s Amazing and beautiful Grace alone. I also love Confession, and have Holy Water in my home, and believe in the True Presence, and pray the rosary, and believe that my decisions in this life matter and speak to the state of my soul. Do you have questions about those things? Ask them. I’m so happy to answer.

And finally, I’m sad that this year, division is going to be celebrated.

Jesus said that they may be one (John 17:21).

Not 30,000+.

One.

-Lorelei

Purchase Lorelei’s Books Here:

On Beautiful Churches

June 30, 2017November 15, 2020 ~ Lorelei Savaryn ~ Leave a comment

The Original Problem

I used to have a problem with ornate churches. I used to think the money would have been better spent elsewhere. I verged, at times, on offended.

Then, I realized, I’ve worshipped in very expensive buildings that weren’t so aesthetically pleasing. Yes, Cathedrals cost a lot more than the average mega-church, but they are both expensive. I’ve also worshipped in some churches that probably weren’t as expensive. I’ve worshipped outside, which is as cost-efficient as you can get. This article isn’t an attempt to argue that worship can’t occur in a variety of settings. It’s an explanation of how I’ve come to love beautiful churches, and to understand the value they hold for the practice of my faith.

The Real Presence

But why is there value in beautiful churches? As Catholics, we believe Jesus himself is present in a very real way in the Eucharist. That’s a good place to start.

During my conversion, I read a book called Jesus Shock by philosopher and Catholic convert Peter Kreeft. He argued that only belief in the True Presence could have built such beautiful churches. Only belief in the fact that those churches would be housing the presence of God himself resulted in the aesthetic beauty and astounding architecture of the Basilicas and Cathedrals of the world.

I believe it was Peter Kreeft who also wrote about beautiful churches, and how they help make up for the scandal of the manger. I had never before thought of the manger as scandalous, but our Savior, the God of all things was born into the most humble of places, amidst animal dung and slop. How scandalous indeed. Beautiful churches that house the presence of our living God in the bread and wine provide a much more fitting place for God to reside in the form of the Eucharist. It provides a contrast to the humble state in which Jesus entered the world as man.

Looking Up

At our current parish, there are a number of amazing stained glass windows that let in the light. At certain Masses at certain times of day, the sun shines its light directly through some of them. It is awe inspiring. I find myself often at Mass, throughout the liturgy, looking up.

I think that’s part of the point. Beautiful churches draw our thoughts and minds heavenward. To help us physically and tangibly connect with the heaven-earth intersection that occurs during the Mass. The incense, the music, the vestments, the tabernacle. They all are helpful in this regard, too. We are a body/soul composite. And all those physical components, including the architecture of the church, help frame and focus our minds on the things of God.

Conclusion

My husband and I visited Paris briefly several years back. We toured Notre Dame Cathedral, with the eyes of tourists. Interested in the architecture and history. I never once thought about the Eucharist that entire trip. I hope to be able to go back someday with the eyes of a Catholic. I think I will appreciate it in a way I wasn’t able to before.

Me in front of Notre Dame, circa 2010

Notre Dame, Paris

Because before, when I walked into a Cathedral I saw interesting architecture but was concerned of the financial waste. I walk in now and see love. Love of God and his True Presence in the bread and the wine.

I don’t need to be in a Cathedral to worship, but I appreciate beautiful churches now.

-Lorelei

Purchase Lorelei’s Books Here:

Do Catholics Have A Different Bible?

May 22, 2017October 20, 2023 ~ Lorelei Savaryn ~ 2 Comments

This letter is free for you to read, but it wasn’t free for me to produce. If you’re interested in supporting the work of This Catholic Family, I would be honored if you would prayerfully consider upgrading your subscription. Or, you can always show your appreciation by buying me a coffee here.

I used to get quite squeamish when sitting in Mass with JP’s family, especially when one of the readings would come from one of the books in the Old Testament that wasn’t in the Protestant Bible. The Books of Wisdom, Sirach, and others were foreign to me.

I was uncomfortable because I was convinced those books did not belong in the Biblical Canon. But, looking back, it surprises me how I assumed the Protestant position on the Canon of the Old Testament, adamently protesting those seven books, but having absolutely no idea why I protested them. I didn’t even think it was something I needed to look into. The Catholics were clearly wrong.

Had someone asked me why I didn’t consider the seven books that make the difference between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles to belong in Scripture, I wouldn’t have been able to give a single reason. Other than to say I grew up with the Protestant Bible. I had simply no justification for my stance on the matter.

RCIA

Well… all that started to change when JP and I began attending RCIA class at our local Parish.

Due to my vague understanding that the Catholic Bible was different, I brought it up during one of my first classes. If the Catholics had the wrong Bible, it would be an easy way for me to stay Protestant. And though I definitely wanted Truth, I didn’t particularly like the idea of how becoming Catholic could affect my relationships with the people at our Protestant Church. No one at the time even knew we were attending those classes. If I could quickly dismiss one of the main Catholic claims, I could go comfortably back to life as I knew it, and no one would know of my brief foray into Catholic territory.

However, this question was one of the earliest ones to be answered above and beyond to my satisfaction due to Church history and sound logic. And therefore it was one of my first major objections to the Catholic faith that turned out to be unfounded.

The Books In Question

The actual difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bible consists of seven books: Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, and additions to Esther and Daniel.

And, in the end, it all ended up being pretty simple for me.

The Reformers decided to utilize the Hebrew version of the Old Testament when they determined Canon during the Reformation. And, simply put, the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, which excluded those seven books, was determined by the Jewish people approximately 100 years after Jesus walked the earth.

So the question really became… did Jewish people, over 100 years after Christ, have the Authority to correctly determine the Christian Canon? Did they have the Holy Spirit? 100 years after Christ, those who remained Jewish certainly didn’t even accept Jesus as the Messiah. So, on the issue of their authority to correctly decide Canon, I had to realize the answer was no. And if the answer is no, then the Protestant church, in utilizing that Canon, had to be the ones in error.

Jesus Used It

A better approach, I discovered, when thinking about what books belong in the Old Testament, was to figure out what Jesus used, as well as the Early Christian Church, and go from there.

It turns out, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Scripture, a vast majority of the time, he is quoting the Septuagint, or Greek translation. An example would be Mark 7:6-7. It also turns out that the Greek translation was very commonly used during the time of Jesus by the Jewish people.

And if Jesus is okay quoting the Septuagint, which contains those seven books… then why would I refuse to do the same?

The Early Church’s Old Testament overwhelmingly included those seven books right up until the time of the Reformation. So the idea of excluding those books in the Old Testament Canon is only as old as the Reformation itself. And if Wisdom, Maccabees, Sirach, and others don’t belong in the Bible, then Christians had it wrong for the first 3/4ths of Christianity’s existence as a religion on this earth. And that just doesn’t make sense.

Extra Books

Understanding the history of how the Canon was developed, along with the other historical evidence of what Old Testament Jesus used, as well as what the Early Church used, I found very quickly I could longer justify my previous conclusion.

It’s interesting now… before I would have described the Catholic Bible as having seven “extra” books. Now, I describe the Protestant Bible as missing Canonical texts. Understanding the solid foundation of the Catholic Canon of Scripture was one of the first of many puzzle pieces that fell into place on my journey to the Catholic Church.

-Lorelei

Resources

Canon of the Holy Scriptures (super thorough)

Why Are Protestant and Catholic Bibles Different?

On Jesus Using the Septuagint

What Bible did Jesus Use?

Interested in More Catholic 101? Check out our Catholic 101 Page!

Purchase Lorelei’s Books Here:

How Rocks and Keys Helped Me Understand the Pope

April 4, 2017November 15, 2020 ~ Lorelei Savaryn ~ 3 Comments

When JP and I were dating, I would often come across his German Grandmother, Oma, at their large Savaryn family gatherings.

She knew I wasn’t Catholic. And, on more than one occasion she tried to get me to understand the Catholic faith by telling me that Jesus told Peter “On this rock I build my church,” and that meant Catholicism was true.

I remember thinking I had no idea how building churches on rocks made someone a Pope. But, she was a very cute elderly lady, so I wasn’t about to argue with her either. I just nodded my head and smiled, while inside wondering what on earth she was talking about.

Fast Forward

Well, it turns out Oma had something with that rock thing. She didn’t explain the entirety of the Catholic thinking to me, but I have since learned “On this rock I build my Church” actually means a lot more than I ever thought it could.

And understanding the Office of the Pope through a scriptural lens was one of the most helpful ways I learned what the Papacy meant to Catholics, and why I ultimately would accept the Pope as the Head of the Church.

Rocks

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter:

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Many smarter and more eloquent people than myself have looked into this issue in great detail. This talk by Scott Hahn is incredibly thorough and well-researched.

But, the issue at hand is what on Earth Jesus is talking about, and what does he mean by a rock?

Oma was indeed wise in knowing that this is a linchpin in establishing the case for the Papacy. During my research into the Catholic faith, I learned that the most logical explanation for what “rock” is referring to, is that Jesus is indeed calling Peter the rock. And that Jesus is saying he will build his Church on Peter. Even Martin Luther knew it. And so do many, many Christian people, on both sides of the Reformation divide.

Luther, however, did not believe that Peter’s role was meant to be passed on. But, as I learned in the following section… that isn’t the case.

Keys

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells Peter:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Old Lorelei would have thought: Nice. Peter gets some keys.

Now, I know there is a lot more meaning to that verse than I ever thought possible.

An important thing to remember when reading about Jesus in the Gospels is that Jesus was Jewish. Many of the things that he did and said would have had great significance for the Jewish people living in his time. And a lot of what Jesus did was fulfill things spoken of in the Old Testament.

When Jesus tells Peter that He is giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, He is actually referencing Isaiah 22.

¹⁵ Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, ¹⁶ Who has hewn for himself a sepulcher on a height and carved his tomb in the rock: “What are you doing here, and what people have you here, that here you have hewn for yourself a tomb?” ¹⁷ The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly ¹⁸ And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! ¹⁹ I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. ²⁰ On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; ²¹ I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. ²² I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. ²³ I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;“

We can really see the parallels here between what Jesus told Peter, and Isaiah 22:22, especially. Jesus wasn’t just telling Peter something random about giving him keys. He was giving Peter authority.

Historically, and Biblically, as in the example from Isaiah, he who held the keys was in a position of authority. The holder of the keys would be the one in charge of the kingdom when the King was away. And that’s what Catholics believe the office of the Pope is as well. When Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, he was setting Peter up to take care of the Christian Church on Earth until Jesus returns.

Furthermore, the Office of the Keys is an inheritable office. That means it was meant from the beginning to be passed on, one person to another, throughout history. Obviously Peter didn’t live long enough to see Jesus return. Jesus knew that would happen, so setting it up as an Office of the Keys ensured it would be passed down from person to person, on and on through time. And the Jewish people living in Jesus’ time would have known exactly what He was referring to.

For me, this information meant that Jesus gave Peter a special role in the Early Church. And that Peter was in a unique, inheritable position of authority. It helped me very much to understand why Catholics have a Pope, and why Peter was the first one. This information led me on the path toward accepting that as how Jesus meant the Church to function from the get-go.

Relating to Protestantism

Another thing that helped me was thinking about this from the standpoint of Protestant church structure. Everywhere I went as a Protestant, there was a head Pastor, sometimes other Pastors, and also a board of Elders. The head Pastor never just unilaterally or flippantly made decisions about the church’s statement of faith. There would always be study, and consultation, and a lot of input into those decisions. As a member of those churches, I put my trust in the discernment of the pastoral staff at the time.

Likewise, no Pope is going to just be hanging out and say, “Well, today I think I’ll change this Church teaching,” or that they are somehow magically granted wisdom in an instant. It’s not that simple. Popes who are impacting Church teachings are incredibly studious, and utilize extensive council in all their decisions. Because everything has to jive. Church teaching cannot contradict Scripture, or Tradition, or the Magisterium.

Regardless of whether one is Protestant or Catholic, we all submit to a hierarchy of some sort. It’s just a much bigger hierarchy in the Catholic Church because of how big the Church is. But I think framing it that way helped me see that I have always submitted to the authority of someone… previously, my Protestant Pastors, and, in many ways, myself. So it wasn’t really that much of a stretch for me, once I understood and believed that the Office of the Pope had serious Biblical and historical merit, to submit to the Authority of the Church, and therefore of the Pope.

Wrapping Up

I know there were a number of other issues relating to the Papacy that I needed to look into as I began my journey into the Catholic Church. Things like Papal Infallibility (no, we don’t think the Pope is perfect), and the not-so-great Popes of ages past. And I will share my journey through those things at a later time.

However, I think the understanding of Jesus’ very intentional use in calling Peter the rock on which He will build His Church, and the significance of the Office of the Keys helped me get a long way past some of my key objections.

A huge part for me was also learning to let go of my perceived right to be the “Pope” of my own faith. I always submitted to Jesus, but there was a lot that I was trying to figure out on my own about what certain things meant, and I was always viewing Scripture through the lens of someone living in our time, today, with very little knowledge of the times in which Jesus lived and the significance of what he said and who he was speaking to.

I started to question why I, a lay person Christian, was so adamant about maintaing my own right to determine the Truths of my own personal faith? In light of the evidence of the Rock and the Keys, I could no longer justify my previous stance. If Jesus set The Church up to have a leader, and that leadership was intentionally an inheritable office… then I needed to accept the Papacy as legit.

The Church with its vast and extensive history has, collectively, an amazing depth of knowledge and understanding, supported by the Holy Spirit, that has protected Truth and will continue to do so partly through the Office of the Pope. It is such solid ground to stand upon. More than I probably even know.

Further Resources

Peter and the Papacy

Was Peter The Rock?

Scott Hahn on the Papacy

-Lorelei

P.S. If you found this post interesting, and would like to read more on This Catholic Family… hit up that follow button on the top left of our page, or follow us on Facebook. We’d love to have you back again!