Home

Help for the journey

Become a helper

Forum

Conversion stories

Newsletter Archives

Links

Contact us

+
JMJ
November 2008                                                                                              Issue 1.10                                                                                                                               

Quo Vadis Newsletter
Scripture and Tradition

Tradition is Not a Dirty Word ~Dave Armstrong
Catechism Quote of the Month
The Church Fathers ~Peter Rowe
Pope Quote of the Month
Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural? ~Mary Clare Piecynski
Did you know? Why Catholics Should Read the Bible. 
Q&A ~ Laura Corrigan
Book of the Month ~ A Biblical Defense of Catholicism 
Novena of the Month

"Tradition" Is Not a Dirty Word
By Dave Armstrong

Evangelical Protestantism holds, by and large, the view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., Faith vs. Works, Matter vs. Spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes Tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of "dirty word."

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of "Sola Scriptura," or "Scripture Alone," which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or "rule of faith" for evangelical Protestants today. "Sola Scriptura" by its very nature tends to pit Tradition against the Bible, and it is this unbiblical notion which we will presently examine.

First of all, one might also loosely define Tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian History of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history, in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, Miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church's authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like "your tradition," "commandments of men," "tradition of men," as opposed to "the commandment of God." St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God's true traditions). Corrupt Pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus - see, e.g., Matt 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian Tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the Apostles.

The Greek word for "tradition" in the New Testament is "paradosis." It occurs four times in the Bible: in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: ". . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you." (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV "ordinances" as "tradition{s}").

2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ". . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. There exists no dichotomy in the Apostle's mind which regards oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical "tradition of men."

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed orally. Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition which turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn't read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as Protestants casually assume. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words "paradidomi" and "paralambano" are usually rendered "delivered" and "received" respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:
1) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (2) By which
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."

2) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: ". . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

3) Jude 3: ". . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

(Cf.Lk 1:1-2, Rom 6:17, 1 Cor 11:23, Gal 1:9,12, 2 Pet 2:21)
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us." All are "delivered" and "received":
1) Traditions "delivered" (1 Cor 11:2), "taught by word or epistle" (2 Thes 2:15), and "received" (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel "preached" and "received" (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God "heard" and "received" (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine "delivered" (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment "delivered" (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith "delivered" (Jude 3).

7) "Things believed among us" "delivered" (Lk 1:1-2).
Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul's writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, "gospel," "word of God," and "tradition" are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that "tradition" is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then "gospel" and "word of God" are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

To conclude our biblical survey, we again cite St. Paul and his stress on the central importance of oral tradition:
1) 2 Timothy 1:13-14: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. (14) That good thing which was
committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."

2) 2 Timothy 2:2: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to "hold fast" his oral teaching "heard of me," but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls Tradition (capital "T"), or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, "apostolic succession." The phrase "Deposit of Faith" is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42, Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the Custodian or Guardian of this Revelation from God. These doctrines can and do develop and become more clearly understood over time with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:13-15). The development of doctrine is a complex topic, but suffice it to say that although doctrines develop, they cannot change their essential nature in the least. And doctrines with which Protestants agree developed too. For example, the Trinity was only established in its definitive and lasting form in the 4th century, after much deliberation. It was always believed in some sense, but came to be understood in much greater depth and exactitude by the Church, as a result of the challenges of heretics such as the Arians (similar to Jehovah's Witnesses) who disbelieved in it partially or totally.

Protestants who are perplexed or infuriated by the seeming "corruption," "excessive growth," or "extra-biblical nature" of some distinctive aspects of Catholic Tradition, must read an extraordinary book by John Henry Newman, a brilliant Anglican clergyman who converted to Catholicism after writing it in 1845. It is called An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (a misnomer since it runs about 450 pages!) - well worth the time for anyone seeking to fairly examine the Church's philosophy of organic development and its denial of the Protestant tradition of "Sola Scriptura."

The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity - the authoritative and insired written revelation of God's New Covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., Tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture. The biblical books were not all immediately obvious to all Christians. Many notable Church Fathers accepted books as part of Scripture which are not now so recognized (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement). Many others didn't accept certain canonical books until very late (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation).

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written Revelation, the Q'uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of "Sola Scriptura" have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the "Bible Alone" mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian Tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself - quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as "twin fonts of the one divine well-spring" (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.

Dave Armstrong is a Catholic apologist who has written many books and articles defending the Catholic faith. Some of his titles include A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, The One-Minute Apologist and The Church Fathers Were Catholic Patristic Evidences for Catholicism. Please visit Dave's website at http://www.biblicalcatholic.com for more information on the books he has written (icons permanently on the top of the blog's front page, including a package e-book deal) and to discover his numerous writings on apologetic topics.

Catechism Quote of the Month
“The Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body.  She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.”  CCC 103

The Church Fathers
By Peter Rowe

One of the most important aspects of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is belief in the Church Fathers. Studying the Fathers has led to many conversions. Even among those who fail to convert to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy often come away with an appreciation of the early Church and the early Church's Faith. The study of the Church fathers is called Patristics or Patrology.

In this article, I will cover three aspects of the Fathers:
1) Who they were
2) Their importance
3) How can I learn more?

Who were the Early Church Fathers?
The early Church Fathers were writers who wrote from the first days of Christianity. There are three eras of the Church Fathers, but I divide them up into five:
1) The Ante-Nicene Fathers. First Apostolic Fathers. These were men who were very close to the Apostles, many of them knew and were disciples of the Apostles. When I think of Apostolic Fathers, I think of the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement of Rome. The Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote before the pivotal Council of Nicea, including Justin Martyr, Ireneaus Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, Cyprian of Carthage, Dionysus.
2) Nicene Fathers: These writers wrote during the Arian controversy. I think of the Historians - Eusebius, Sozemus. I think of Ambrose, Athanasius, Ephrem, and Basil the Great.
3) The post-Nicene Fathers - Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Theodoret, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, John Damascene, John Cassian, and Vincent of Lerins.

There are many more Fathers than these. But I would like to explain the importance of the Early Church Fathers.

Let us start with basic Catholic doctrine. For Catholics, the Scriptures are not a comprehensive source of doctrine and dogma. (1) The Church, basing herself both on Tradition and Scripture, believes there is one Word of God, found in Scripture, and the Apostolic Tradition. (2) It is important to realize that for Catholics, the Fathers do not reveal doctrine but are witnesses to it. Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. (3)

The Scriptures themselves speak of Apostolic tradition - 1 Corinthians 11: 2 (4); 1 Thessalonians 2: 13 (5); 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 (6). What exactly are Apostolic Traditions? They are things such as Christ is present in the Eucharist, the Divinity and humanity of Christ, the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit are all divine, Mary is the New Eve, the Virgin Mother of Jesus, and the Canon of the New Testament. The teaching of the Magisterium then explains these teachings with Dogmas, such as Transubstantiation, the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of God, and the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

What is not dogma and/ or Apostolic Tradition is things such as the Mass in Latin or the Rosary.

The Fathers are timely witnesses to the Tradition according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (688). What the Church is saying is not that the Fathers are infallible or inerrant (as the Church dogmatically teaches that the Holy Scriptures are (7)) but that they witness to the Faith, Sacraments, Law and Prayer of the Church in history.

The Fathers at times made serious mistakes. Not all of the early Church Fathers are saints (two of the greatest, Origen and Tertullian come to mind). But what they are is both teachers and defenders of the Faith of their time.

What do the Fathers bring us other than the witness to the Faith? They are crucial to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Most of the Fathers wrote a millenium before the Protestant Reformation. Their commentaries on Scripture make the Bible come alive. (8) They illuminate the basic doctrines of the Faith.

The reason the Fathers bring so many converts to Catholicism and Orthodoxy is the beliefs they witness to. They do not witness to any extent any form of Protestant Christianity. This should not surprise us, given the Protestant dogma of sola Scriptura.

The Fathers we read do not teach doctrines such as the priesthood of all believers, an invisible Church, accepting Jesus as one's personal Savior, eternal security, altar calls. What do the Fathers teach? (I will try to use the Ante-Nicene and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers published by Hendrickson wherever possible so that the quotes can easily be read in context. Not all evidence for a particular belief is given, just examples of where a doctrine may be found if research is done. Numbers in Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers are not pg. numbers, but the numbers assigned numerically in the series, though pgs. are given)

Ignatius of Antioch (9)and Polycarp (10) called the Church "Catholic" and spoke of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, (11) as well as a Monarchical bishop (12), and stated that the Church of Rome presides in love. (13) Ignatius himself was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. (14)

Ireneaus of Lyons stated that it was the Roman Church that all churches must agree with because of it's definitive apostolic witness. (15) He also did not speak of sola Scriptura but taught Apostolic tradition. (16) Justin Martyr (my confirmation saint) taught the Real Presence of the Eucharist, (17) he (18) and Ignatius (19) spoke of Sunday worship, and with (20) Ireneaus (21) and Tertullian (22) spoke of Mary as the New Eve.

Ambrose (23) and Ephrem (24) spoke of Mary as sinless, (as did Augustine (25) ). Athanasius called Mary the Ark of the Covenant. (26)

Jerome wrote a book defending Mary's Perpetual Virginity . (27) Augustine taught free will, (28) the Eucharist as sacrifice (29) and prayed for the repose of his Mother's soul, spoke of praying to saints (30) and also came out with the spiritual understanding of the Millenium in the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation ) (31). At the council of Chalcedon, the declaration was made that "Peter has spoken through Leo." (32) Chrysostom wrote a book on the priesthood. (33) Vincent of Lerins taught doctrinal development (34) and John Damascene taught Mary's Assumption . (35)

The Scriptures also are a point: the Deuterocanonical books were used by the Didache , (36) Augustine, (37) St. Damasus , (38) the Council of Rome, (39) the Council of Carthage (40), Pope Innocent I (41). This matter was not closed in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.

This brief survey should help us understand further why the Church teaches some doctrines and rejects others - she believes that, by Apostolic Tradition, written and unwritten, that the Faith she teaches is true.

Where can you read more about the Fathers? There are several books written of the writers of individual father, there is a book by Jesuit John R. Willis called the Teaching of the Church Fathers. Johannes Quasten has a five volume set called Patrology. William Jurgens has a three volume collection of Church Fathers called The Faith of the Early Fathers. If one is very serious about Patistics, one can look at the thirty-seven volume collection of Fathers translated by Anglican divines and published by Hendrickson Publishers, although at used bookstores you may run across other versions of this series. There are three divisions - the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One containing many works of Augustine and John Chrysostom, Series Two covers the first seven Ecumenical Councils,plus material from many other Church Fathers. One should be aware though of the outright Protestantism in some of the commentaries (fair game, as long as they are not dishonest). This series of Patristics is found in many sources online, including newadvent.org.

Patristics is a very comprehensive field. My hope is that you begin to desire to read and better understand the importance of the Church Fathers in the development of Christianity in both the East and the West.

Footnotes:

Pope Quote
“The Church reads Scripture in the light of the ‘rule of faith,’ that is, of her living faith that has remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles.”
John Paul II, Duodecimum Saeculum, 6

Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural?
By Mary Clare Piecynski

 “Sola Scriptura” was a famous battle cry of the Reformation that is still heralded by many Christians today as the only means by which to know truth.  It is common within the Christian culture to simply accept this belief of the Bible alone and not delve into the concept to verify its accuracy.  The encyclopedia explains that the concept of solo scriptura “is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.”  We will examine the witness of the biblical evidence to discover whether or not sola scriptura is a legitimate facet to Christianity or if it is indeed a distortion of what the Bible really teaches. 
To begin with lets turn to our Bibles and look at some passages that seem to indicate that the Bible alone should be our guide.  First off is 2 Tim. 3:16-17 which states “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”  This passage does not proof solo scriptura for the simple reason that the Scriptures that Paul was referring to was the Old Testament canon, the New Testament had not been completely written yet so if Paul was trying to proof solo scriptura he would have been saying that only the Old Testament was necessary.  Secondly, the passage states that Scripture is profitable for teaching etc, it does not say that it is sufficient ie that there is no other authority.  Further, in 2 Timothy alone, Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (please see 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14).  John 5:39 is another passage that is used in support of the belief in the Bible alone since in this verse Jesus says to “search the Scriptures.”  In this case Jesus was actually rebuking the Jews who searched the Scriptures but did not believe in Him.  Also, they were only searching the Old Testament Scriptures since the New Testament was not written while Jesus was still alive.  John 10:35 should also be mentioned since in this verse Jesus says “Scripture cannot be broken.”  This, however, does not prove that Scripture is the only source of authority, if anything, like the other verses, it merely refers to the Old Testament.
Since it appears that the Bible does not authoritatively state that it is the only guide for Christian belief, let us now examine the Bible to see whether or not an individual man has the authority to interpret Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 clearly states that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”  Furthermore, in Acts 8:30-31 the Ethiopian eunuch after reading Isaiah says that he cannot understand what he reads “unless some one guides me.”  Hebrews 5:12 also shows that Christians “need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word.”  Also, 2 Peter 2:16 tell us that the Holy Spirit does is not given to all to guide them into knowing the truths of the Scriptures because “there are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.” 
Throughout Scripture we never find the Bible saying that it is the sole source for truth, in fact, we see that it says many times that Tradition is necessary too.  Furthermore, Jesus told the apostles to go and preach, He didn’t command them to “go and write.”  Therefore, oral Tradition was commanded by Christ, not the writing down of His words.  Also, in Matt. 28:20 we see Christ telling us to "observe all I have commanded," but after looking at John 20:30 and 21:25 we see that not everything Jesus taught is in Scripture. Therefore, there must be teachings not in Scripture that we must observe which leads us to reject solo scriptura.  Scripture also teaches us the importance of oral Tradition.  For instance, 2 Thess 3:6 instructs us to keep away from men who do not live “in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”  Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:2 St. Paul tells us to “maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”  Another powerful Scripture that shows us the importance of Tradition is 2 Thess 2:15 which tells us to “hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”  In essence then, the Bible shows us the importance of Scripture and Tradition which together hold the treasury of truth.
       Now, let us turn for a moment to the effects of a belief in solo scriptura.  With yourself set up as the authority for interpreting Scripture logically we get different interpretations.  But, however, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth.  How does this square with thousands of different denominations all preaching different things?  Since the truth is one and two opposite things cannot be at the same time true it follows that not every denomination is teaching the truth since they cannot agree on issues of doctrine.  So either the Holy Spirit is leading the people astray, which is impossible or rather, the Scriptures need to be interpreted within the living Tradition of the Church that Christ founded.  The Church that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth (John 16:13).
      In summary, solo scriptura is not found within the pages of Scripture.  On the contrary, Scripture many times reaffirms the importance of Scripture along with Tradition.  Therefore, Bible believing Christians should be compelled to take the Bible at its word and embrace the beauty of the Traditions of which the Bible so eloquently speaks. 

Did you know?
Catholics are and always have been encouraged to read the Bible.  In fact, St. Jerome, a Doctor of the Church, said “ignorance of the Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ.”

Q&A
By Laura Corrigan

What is the difference between Tradition and tradition?

As we have learned, Sacred Tradition is the truths that have been handed down from the Apostles by word and example, that were not necessarily put down in writing.  The Catholic Church teaches that both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are necessary for the structure and complete understanding of the Church. 

There are, however, two distinct types of Tradition.  Tradition with a capital “T”, must be understood and accepted by a Catholic in order to be a Catholic.  An example of a Tradition would be that of the doctrine of the Trinity.  While Sacred Scripture refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it does not explicitly state that He is one God, in three Divine Persons.  However, you must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity to be a Catholic.  Traditions with a capital “T”, will never change.

There are also what we would call traditions with a small “t”.  These you do not have to understand and accept as a Catholic.  An example of these would be the Marian apparitions.  Our Lady of Fatima is recognized by the Church as a legitimate Marian apparition, but you do not necessarily have to believe that it happened.  These traditions are different in the respect that they will change over time.  For instance, in the olden days, women usually wore head coverings during Mass.  The Catholic Church has never come out with a statement saying that: “You must wear head coverings in a Church,” so it is an option that Catholics can choose to follow.  Clearly this tradition has changed, as very few women nowadays wear head coverings.

It is important to remember that when something is a Tradition, that you accept it in good faith.  To help you know what Traditions you must believe to be Catholic, you may look to the Nicene Creed that Catholics say every Sunday at Mass.

Book of the Month
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism
By David Armstrong

Written in a popular and contemporary style, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism is an exposition and defense of the Catholic faith by means of copious scriptural citations, which support Catholic doctrines and dogmas. Each chapter offers a precise definition of the doctrine considered, usually from conciliar or papal pronouncements, with a brief explanation, and verifying references from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Available from www.biblicalcatholic.com

Novena of the Month
To learn more about the feast of Christ the King on November 23 click here. 
NOVENA TO CHRIST THE KING
Say the following prayers each day:
O Lord our God, You alone are the Most Holy King and Ruler of all nations. We pray to You, Lord, in the great expectation of receiving from You, O Divine King, mercy, peace, justice and all good things.  Protect, O Lord our King, our families and the land of our birth. Guard us we pray Most Faithful One. Protect us from our enemies and from Your Just Judgment.  Forgive us, O Sovereign King, our sins against you. Jesus, You are a King of Mercy. We have deserved Your Just Judgment. Have mercy on us, Lord, and forgive us. We trust in Your Great Mercy. O most awe-inspiring King, we bow before You and pray; May Your Reign, Your Kingdom, be recognized on earth.
Amen.
Our Father...
Hail Mary...
Glory Be...