The common narrative set before Catholics is that theirs is the one true Church, as founded by Christ upon Peter (Matthew 16:18), and that after that time, for 1500 years, this was known. Then, one day, a heretic named Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Whittenberg, inventing a whole bunch of brand new doctrines never before seen.
This commonly believed narrative is a myth for two major reasons. The first is that Luther's 95 Theses were never actually intended to cause the division they inevitably ended up creating. Luther's contention was not that the Catholic Church was illegitimate. In fact, the authority of the Papacy is clearer in Luther's 95 Theses than it has ever been in the Bible. Mainly because while the authors of scripture never believed in a Papacy, Luther, at the time, did.
In reality, Luther's 95 Theses were actually not especially radical. During his time, officials in the Catholic Church had gone full con artist, claiming the purchase of indulgences from the Pope had as much power to forgive sins as the cross of Christ did. One particular official, John Tetzel, even had a particular saying: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!" Hence Thesis 27: "They preach vanity who say that the soul flies out of Purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles."
As many others at the time, Luther criticised this deceitful practice, even believing "...if the Pope knew the ways and doings of the preachers of indulgences, he would prefer that St. Peter’s Minster should be burnt to ashes, rather than that it should be built up of the skin, flesh, and bones of his lambs." (Thesis 50). Luther attributed no guilt to the Pope, nor to the Catholic Church as a whole, but to the con artists who would sell indulgences through deceit. He was also concerned that his congregants were not internally grieved by their own sins. In effect, he was worried that they showed worldly sorrow, but not Godly sorrow (2 Corinthians 7:10). Luther therefore believed an academic debate needed to be had within the Catholic Church, and with the publication of his 95 Theses, he openly challenged the academics of his time to that debate.
Of course, whether Luther intended to spark the Reformation or not, he ultimately did so. Nevertheless, the idea most Catholics seem to have in their heads, that Luther simply came up with a bunch of counter-traditional nonsense, rudely nailed it to a church door, and drew a bunch of people to a brand new religion, is simply false.
What is also false, and blatantly so, is the myth that Catholic tradition had remained unchanged for 1500 years, whereas "Protestant" doctrine did not exist at that time. In reality, while Catholicism is quite old, it did not exist from the beginning, and has changed quite drastically from its conception. By contrast, "Protestant" doctrines have existence since before there was a Catholic Church to protest. Aside from the fact they are found in the Bible, and are therefore absolute, they can be quite explicitly found in many early Christian writings. The entire Church was unanimous on Catholic tradition only if you exclude those within the Church who were not.
That's not to say Catholic doctrine is as absent from Church history as they pretend "Protestant" doctrine is. Indeed, Christian writers both orthodox and heretical have historically held views which are widely accepted by neither the Catholic Church, nor by "Protestants", in the modern day. Anti-semitism and misogyny, for example, were very common among the so-called Church "Fathers".
Many examples could be cited of how radically Catholic tradition has changed over time, but I have decided to cite only three: The Medieval Eucharistic Controversy, the acceptance of the Deuterocanon, and the abrogation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
First, let us look at the Eucharistic Controversy of medieval times. In 831 A.D.,a Catholic monk by the name of Paschasius Radbertus published his book "De corpore et sanguine Christi" (Concerning Christ's Body and Blood), in which he argued that the bread and the wine, upon consecration by a priest, are miraculously transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Although he did not use the term "Transubstantiation", this effectively became that view, which finally became entrenched as Catholic dogma at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.).
However, Radbertus' views, while they are now official Catholic doctrine, were not consensus in his time. Among his many opponents was another monk named Ratramnus (1). At the request of King Charles II, Ratramnus made his own views known in his book De corpore et sanguine Domini (Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord). In this work, which was largely a response to Radbertus, Ratramnus argued for a view more in line with Luther's view of Consubstantiation. That is, the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood only in a figurative sense. However, Christ is spiritually present, and there is therefore power within the symbol that is made effective by faith.
Ratramnus' view eventually got him posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Lateran Synod in 1059 A.D., and his books were even added to the Index of Forbidden Books in 1559. Nevertheless, Ratramnus' books prove beyond dispute that such views did exist prior to Luther. It is impossible, after all, to ban a book that does not exist.
Ratramnus is not the only ancient writer to suggest the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood in a figurative sense. Tertullian, for example, interpreted John 6:63 in the identical way to modern "Protestants". That is, when Jesus says "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life", He is explicitly telling us that it is by hearing and believing His words that we consume Him unto salvation. Tertullian also wrote "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol." (2).
Ratramnus, Tertullian, and many others throughout history have interpreted the Eucharist as the symbols they very clearly are. There are those who took a more literal approach, but there are those who did not. And so Catholics have two choices: Deny that they existed, which requires denying the very history they claim as a foundation for their faith, or deny that their opinions are valid. The problem with this is that it is the very point of contention! You cannot claim history against history. Thus, the Catholic is disarmed, finally being forced back to the scriptures.
But then comes the question, what is scripture? In the modern day, the Catholic Bible is slightly thicker than the "Protestant" Bible, owing to their addition of several old Jewish works, the "Deuterocanon", to the Old Testament. Modern Catholics often insist that this is not an addition. Rather, allegedly, "Protestants" removed them. But this claim could not be further from the truth.
In reality, the very term "Deuterocanon" (second canon) is testament to the fact it was never regarded as equal to scripture. Although it has persisted alongside scripture for a very long time, it was never agreed, by the Jews or the early Church, that they were actually canonical. This, once again, is not to say that no one considered them canonical. However, it is no coincidence that both the Jewish and "Protestant" canons contain the identical works (if divided a little differently).
Because of the particular nature of this discussion, it is actually possible to appeal to non-Christian Jewish thought regarding the canonical status of the Deuterocanon, especially if it gives us clues as to the scriptures to which Jesus appealed during His ministry, and the scriptures which the Apostles, especially Paul, would have been familiar with.
Suffice to say, Jesus was the greatest Jew who ever lived. He fulfilled the scriptures perfectly, obeying them to the letter, and of course doing all that was foretold of Him. So zealous was Christ for the scriptures that He authoritatively declared they could not be broken (John 10:35). Paul, while obviously a sinner and nowhere near as devout as Jesus, was nevertheless a Pharisee, zealous for the traditions of the Jews (Galatians 1:13-14). If there was any problem with the canon of their day, it would have been beneficial for Jesus and/or the Apostles to mention it. Their silence legitimises the canon of their day. But what was that canon?
In 90 A.D., Josephus shed a little light on this issue. In Against Apion, he wrote "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them." (3).
From the above, we see very clearly, in the first century, the Jewish thought on both the canon of scripture, and even the so-called 400 "Silent years". In the view of Josephus, canonical status depended upon the succession of prophets (which ties in quite nicely with 1 Maccabees 9:27, which tells us the prophets had ceased to appear in Israel). From Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, prophets wrote, by divine inspiration, the events of their time, but after that, non-prophets, whose writings "...hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers...". In other words, the Jews were very much aware of Jewish writings post-Malachi, but because they were not written by prophets, they were not considered scriptures.
One might be confused, however, that Josephus only accepted 22 books, whereas the Old Testament contains 39. This is due to the way in which the books were divided. 1 and 2 Chronicles, for example, are one book in the Jewish canon. Ruth is attached to Judges. Lamentations to Jeremiah. The divisions are different, but the books themselves are the same.
Thus, we see that the Old Testament canon of Jesus' day was very much "Protestant". It is disputed, owing to incomplete historical evidence, exactly when the Jewish canon became "fixed". Nevertheless, Josephus clearly shows us that in the first century, the Jews accepted the "Protestant" canon.
The early Church continued this tradition, permitting, and even encouraging Christians to read the Deuterocanonical books, but by no means considering them scripture. As Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius (296/8 A.D. - 373 A.D.) became an excellent example. Due to the excellence of Alexandria's astronomers, it was customary for the Bishop of Alexandria to write to the other bishops, telling them the correct date for Easter. These letters would often contain other information. In 367 A.D., Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter stated the following: "But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless."
While it is strange that Athanasius did not include Esther, but did include Baruch, as canonical, his view on the Old Testament was, once again, very similar to the "Protestant" Old Testament. In his eyes, the books of the Deuterocanon "...have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter...".
Disputes over the canonical status of these books continued throughout history. In fact, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent."
Here, we actually see a Catholic source admitting that the acceptance of the Deuterocanon is a later, Reformation era dogma. Before the Council of Trent, many prominent Catholic figures, including Popes like Gregory the Great, rejected, or at the very least disputed the idea that the Deuterocanonical books are scripture. It was the Council of Trent that finally "settled" the matter, officially declaring that the Deuterocanon is scripture. One might say, ironically, this was done in protest of Luther.
Above, we have two great examples of major changes within the Catholic Church, shattering the narrative that Luther got in the way of 1500 years of Christian tradition. But what's especially interesting to note is that Catholic tradition continues to evolve. Even within the last 100 years, Catholicism has been modified, if ever so slightly. In the 1983 Code of Canon law, for example, we read "When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;" (4).
Abrogation is such a non-Christian concept that in one discussion with a Catholic, I was actually accused of creating a straw man by likening Catholicism to Islam. Abrogation is the concept of replacing prior revelation with an equal or better one. According to Jude 1:3, this just does not happen in Christianity. The Christian faith is complete. We need not alter it, or expect it to be altered. Yet, the Code of Canon Law 1983 abrogated the entire Code of Canon Law 1917. Most interestingly, this includes a canon on women wearing head coverings. Why is this so interesting? Because Catholic apologists argue that 1 Corinthians 11:2 legitimises the equality of tradition and scripture, yet the Code of Canon Law 1983 abrogates the very tradition being discussed! In other words, one of the few Bible verses Catholics use in defence of their Church has been abrogated by their own doctrine!
As I write this, the Wix editor is already predicting that this article will take the average person 12 minutes to read, and yet I have given only 3 examples of when history is inconsistent with the Catholic narrative. I could go on, and have indeed repeatedly shown that Catholic claims of history do not match the extant writings we have. This, of course, in spite of Catholicism's "Index of Forbidden books", its nasty habit of burning books (and people) that disagreed with it, and the simple fact that history naturally erases itself over time.
This problem is so obvious to historians that Catholics have worked tirelessly to mitigate it. One example is John Henry Newman (1801 A.D. - 1890 A.D.). In 1845, Newman wrote An Essay on the Development of Doctrine, in which he argued that Catholic doctrine has always been implicit throughout history, but became more explicit throughout the centuries, with newer statements being consistent with older ones. According to Newman, doctrines which seem innovative, such as Purgatory and the Marian dogmas, developed in a manner similar to doctrines "Protestants" accept. The Trinity, for example.
This line of reasoning conceals a confession: Catholic doctrine is conspicuously absent throughout history. Unlike the Trinity, which can absolutely be found in scripture, Purgatory is nowhere to be seen in scripture, and is not often found in the writings of the early Church. Similarly, the Marian dogmas are actually contradicted by scripture. As we have just seen, there as actually a rather toxic mixture of beliefs present throughout history. Early writers, orthodox and heretical, preached a range of weird and wonderful beliefs (which many of them changed over time, just as we do), and so while it is possible to twist scripture and rely upon extra-biblical writings to demonstrate that primitive forms of Catholic doctrines existed, the idea that Catholicism was consistently present, but merely became more explicit over the years, is a tacit admission that it was not so consistently present.
Throughout history, many brave Christians contended for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, and more often than not, they found themselves in direct conflict with modern Catholicism. If I, as a "Protestant", am to be considered anathema with these men for believing the scriptures as they did, then so be it, but it cannot be claimed that such views have no basis in history. Dismissing people as heretical does not erase the fact that their views both existed, and are significantly older than Martin Luther. It may run contrary to the popular Catholic narrative, but that is because the narrative runs counter to the truth, not because the Catholic Church is in any way founded on Christ.
As you can see, the argument from 1500 years of tradition, while commonly used by Catholics, is absurd no matter how it is understood. If Catholics want to claim theirs were the only views around for 1500 years, they lose the argument because not even the Catholic Church has always held those beliefs, whereas "Protestant" views have existed, and indeed have been visible in scripture, since before there was a Catholic Church to protest. On the other hand, if they want to argue that their views had merely existed for 1500 years before Luther, even if they want to claim they only started as being implicit, they lose the argument because it's a ridiculous argument. Denying the Deity of Christ is older than the Catholic Church. Gnosticism is older than the Catholic Church. Judaism is both older and more legitimate than the Catholic Church. Age does nothing to legitimise a doctrine.
As an example, it is true that the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to be quite old. So is the idea that Mary married (Matthew 1:20-24), had legitimate marital relations (Matthew 1:25), and bore children (Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Luke 8:19; Mark 3:31) with Joseph. Which view is correct? The obvious answer is that, since scripture is divinely inspired, any early writers who said Mary was a perpetual virgin (as if her sex life is any of our business) are factually wrong. It seems that their views come not from scripture or Apostolic tradition, but rather from the erroneous view that using the marriage bed, which scripture says is undefiled (Hebrews 13:4), somehow diminishes a woman's dignity.
The same is true for all traditions, great and small. Truth is not dictated by a Church, no matter how old that Church may be, no matter how well that Church may be able to manufacture some connection to the early Church, no matter how much that Church may claim legitimacy from Christ. Any Church worth its salt will admit, as the Catholic Church does, that the Bible is the inspired word of the Living God, and therefore any Church that contradicts it, as the Catholic Church often does, is wrong. When God speaks, it doesn't matter if it was 6,000 years ago, 3,400 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or yesterday, no man, not even a Pope, may tell you to believe otherwise. Setting aside the word of God for sake of tradition is as foolish today as it was when the Pharisees criticised Jesus for not binding His disciples to their traditions.
References
1. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Ratramnus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 May. 2020 (link)
2. Tertullian of Carthage - Against Marcion, book 4, Chapter 40
3. Josephus, Flavius - Against Apion, Volume 1 (link).
4. CODE OF CANON LAW, BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS, Canon 6 (link)
Comments