Wresting the Scriptures at Envoy Magazine

Envoy Magazine, a Catholic publication edited by Patrick Madrid, features an article in volume 4.6 that is truly from the twilight zone of apologetics. Prominently featured on the cover, The Apologetics Zone by Caroline Schermerhorn maintains that the development of doctrine, and the authority of oral Tradition, can be demonstrated from the writings of the apostle Paul. The passage cited is from first Corinthians:

Now the following is an excerpt from The Apologetics Zone article regarding the above passage from the apostle Paul:

... “Well, he says here that he received this account of the Last Supper from the Lord. Gram, he wasn’t present at the Last Supper. He never even knew Jesus before the Resurrection! This information was given him by a third party. And yet, he equates that with having received it from our Lord. So it would seem that even as early as the New Testament, there is evidence of an apostolic succession of Tradition, a handing on of ideas and development of doctrine.”

...

“... Protestants claim there is no biblical basis for the oral Tradition of the Church. Yet here St. Paul is saying that what he received by way of spoken tradition, he thought of as revelation from God. Then he goes on to develop an idea on top of that tradition. See, look what it says here in verse 29: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” This isn’t a piece of doctrine from Jesus or the twelve apostles. It’s a theological development from the oral tradition St. Paul had received. Who could argue with that?” ...

Excerpt from The Apologetics Zone online, by Caroline Schermerhorn.

Who could argue with that? First of all, it is necessary, apparently, to define what the title apostle means in scripture and how it different from a disciple. An apostle is one who received the gospel message directly from Christ Himself, and not from any intermediary. There had to be direct face-to-face instruction from Jesus Christ to qualify one as an apostle:

A disciple of Christ, on the other hand, is a follower of Christ's teachings, but need not have ever met Him. Anyone can be a disciple of Christ, but unless you have met and been chosen, taught and sent by Christ personally, you are not, strictly speaking, an apostle. So the original 12 disciples, called by Jesus Christ, taught by Him for 3 1/2 years, and sent out to the world with the gospel message, are apostles. But what of Paul? He converted to Christianity some 4 years or so after the crucifixion, and previously was a zealous persecutor of Christians. Just how is Paul an apostle?

The Apologetics Zone article would have you believe that Paul was taught through oral Tradition from a third party (not Christ Himself) about the Last Supper, and that Paul then builds on this oral Tradition to develop additional doctrine on his own, which is also to be considered authoritative. Can it be true? Are the authority of Catholic oral Tradition and doctrinal development proved by the example of the apostle Paul? Wait - the APOSTLE Paul? How is Paul an apostle? As most any student of the Bible will tell you, Paul (known then at Saul) was converted as a result of an encounter with the risen Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus:

Following his conversion, and upon his arrival at Damascus, what did the apostle Paul do?

This is why Paul is called an apostle, he did meet face-to-face with Jesus, and he was taught by Jesus directly. However, this seems to be a fact that Paul was constantly and repeatedly having to affirm to his audiences and readers, given his previous infamous history of zealous persecution:

Of these affirmations of his apostolic calling from Jesus, I would like now to call attention to the first chapter of Galatians, which we will look at in some detail.

The remaining quotes of scripture are from the Catholic's own Douay Rheims translation:

Paul makes the point here that he was not called or taught by men, but by Christ Himself. He is a genuine apostle of Christ, just as much as the other twelve.

Paul has given a very strong warning that anyone who does not preach the same gospel as himself is anathema, which the King James equates to being cursed by God. So now remember, the question is where did Paul get his knowledge of the gospel? Was it from a third party, and not Christ? Paul continues:

Could anything be more clear? Having previously been a zealot for the Tradition of men, Paul now categorically rejects the notion that he was taught the gospel by men, not even by the other apostles. He makes the point that it was fully three years after his conversion before he even met with an another apostle, that being Peter, and only for a short 15 days.

If Paul is using his conversion on the road to Damascus as the reference point, he is saying that in fourteen years of ministry, he spent a mere 15 days with Peter in Jerusalem, and that only after having preached for 3 years, beginning in the synagogues of Damascus (Acts 9:20). Paul was simply not taught by men, but only by the Lord Jesus Christ. With this truth firmly in mind let's return to the first verse of the passage of scripture cited by the article in Envoy Magazine:

Who did Paul say he received his knowledge of the Last Supper from? The Lord - not a third party, not from another apostle, or another disciple, or any other person, but from Jesus Christ Himself, and that is precisely what Paul meant. This, Envoy Magazine promotes as a validation of oral Tradition from a third party? The apostle Paul is, without doubt, the absolute worst possible candidate in scripture from which to attempt to validate Catholic oral Tradition and doctrinal development, given his very clear assertion that he was not taught by men, but directly by Christ. The view being promoted by Envoy Magazine, is in fact, the direct opposite of Paul's very clear repeated teaching in scripture.

This has to raise the question, just how did this article get into Envoy Magazine in the first place, particularly since it has top billing on the cover? Are Patrick Madrid and Caroline Schermerhorn completely ignorant of Paul's conversion in Acts, or his testimony in the first chapter of Galatians? It would seem so. And who will the article The Apologetics Zone convince regarding Catholic oral Tradition? Surely only those equally unfamiliar with scripture and the apostle Paul. Let's again recall the very strong warning the apostle Paul gives in his epistle to the Galatians: