G
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Generally, I tend to stick the things I know best, where I have some in-depth reading background and a minimum of 25 books on hand, on the subject, more or less. That’s not limited to Anglicanish, or even faith-related sort of stuff, by a long shot, but that’s the area that most often comes up around here.Hey GKC,
Good to see you on a non-Anglican thread (though I love your participation on those threads.)
Each of us can really only speak from our own experience.
Peace,
Anna
GKC
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
A
AlwaysCurious
Guest
Seeing a GKC in the discussion brought to mind one of my favorite GKC quotes. 
“I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The
ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or
cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might
express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the
scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of
that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not
sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
–G.K. Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion
:clapping:
“I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The
ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or
cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might
express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the
scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of
that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not
sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
–G.K. Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion
:clapping:
G
GKC
Guest
The first sentence, as quoted, is truncated by a couple of words, but the passage itself is from op. cit., chap. II, pp. 31-32, 1st ed., 1929).Seeing a GKC in the discussion brought to mind one of my favorite GKC quotes.
“I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The
ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or
cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might
express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the
scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of
that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not
sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
–G.K. Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion
:clapping:
I’ve collected Chesterton for over 46 years.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I’ve actually found people, including RCs, who scorn my man.Yep. I copied and pasted from EWTN’s website. Is there anyone who doesn’t love Chesterton? Three cheers for common sense!
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
That he is. I don’t accept all he says, but I love reading him saying it. After those 46 years, I own basically everything he wrote, as published between covers, under his name.I’ve only really discovered Chesterton in the last few years and I can’t get enough; not only from a religious standpoint but also a social and political standpoint. The man is brilliant.
GKC
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
QUOTE
And this one thing is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
…]
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,John Henry Newman, Image Books, a Division of Doubleday, 1960, pp. 34-35
For those who may not know, J. H. Newman was a famous Anglican clergyman who went to the English countryside to study Catholicism and write a book criticizing the Church for apparent variations in doctrine that he used as objections to the truth of Catholic teaching. When his long, historical study was finished (1841 - 1845) and he had written his book, he put down his pen, called a priest, and asked to be received into the Catholic Church. The book was his Essay. He eventually became John Henry Cardinal Newman.
Jim Dandy
And this one thing is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
…]
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,John Henry Newman, Image Books, a Division of Doubleday, 1960, pp. 34-35
For those who may not know, J. H. Newman was a famous Anglican clergyman who went to the English countryside to study Catholicism and write a book criticizing the Church for apparent variations in doctrine that he used as objections to the truth of Catholic teaching. When his long, historical study was finished (1841 - 1845) and he had written his book, he put down his pen, called a priest, and asked to be received into the Catholic Church. The book was his Essay. He eventually became John Henry Cardinal Newman.
Jim Dandy
P
Publisher
Guest
For me…to be deep into history in no way influences me to be Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian Orthodox…only if I accepted the Catholic/Orthodox version of history would Friend John Henry’s quote make sense.
N
Newsy
Guest
I am glad you have had a very educated protestant experience, however that hasn’t resembled the experience I had. I am a convert to the Catholic Church from the Presbyterian church. To say there are any protestant churches in my area that teach early church history would be a total stretch of the truth. I was a member of 2 Presbyterian churches and my wife was a Lutheran. I have dozens of friends in various protestant churches and family in others, but have seen no Church History taught at all. I have brought up Church History to some and gotten poor responses. I understand this is not a cross section of protestantism, but I have never been around anything like you describe. Be careful using the word “typical”.
R
Rag_Hanger
Guest
I can’t help but wonder if a Catholic would ever admit that they experienced anything good in a Protestant church. Let’s be honest: it’s not exactly in your best interests to admit that we teach church history. And yet, the existence of seminaries, Bible colleges, individual churches, radio programs, books and magazines, para-church ministries, and websites all geared toward teaching church history to Protestants show that it is true.
I find it a little odd that whenever I post on a Protestant website a post about church history, Protestants come out of the woodwork to discuss it. When our church offers classes, we have to turn people away. When podcasts such as White Horse Inn and Fighting For the Faith discuss it, they are among the most popular Christian radio shows on the air. When Wretched Radio releases a church history series on DVD, it’s among their best selling products. When VisionForums sells church history materials, they’re consistently among their best selling materials. And yet, in spite of that, not one Catholic will ever acknolwedge that we’ve studied church history.
My personal belief is that it’s because if you do acknowledge that we take church history seriously, as all of the evidence shows, then you must also acknowledge that we see something, somewhere in the pre-Reformation history of the Church that we disagree with. And to acknowledge that we have carefully considered the history of the Catholic Church and disagreeing with its doctrines or practices might mean, God forbid, that we have a valid reason for disagreeing.
If you guys don’t want to believe that we study church history, then fine. But the bottom line is that we’re too busy doing it to argue about not doing it.
R
Rag_Hanger
Guest
Jim Dandy:
I have two grad degrees in history, one from Rutgers University and one from Auburn University. I was required to take numerous church history classes as part of my curriculum at SBTS. I taught history at both the high school and college levels for years. I currently teach church history. Is that deep enough for you?
It was partially through the study of the Reformation that I realized I could no longer be Catholic.
I have two grad degrees in history, one from Rutgers University and one from Auburn University. I was required to take numerous church history classes as part of my curriculum at SBTS. I taught history at both the high school and college levels for years. I currently teach church history. Is that deep enough for you?
N
Newsy
Guest
Rag Hanger;8150324 said:As proof, he is so busy studying church history that he doesn’t have time to post this!
Just kidding!
I don’t doubt some churches may study it, but I have never been exposed to that. Please don’t take offense to my posts, I do not doubt you at all, just haven’t seen it in my area.
I guess the only church history I saw as a protestant was a warped and feeble attempt to explain the church as an invisible body.There was a very visible body of believers, they canonized the Bible, hence the OP.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Rag Hanger,
I think you are reading way too much into Catholic motives. In doing so; you’re making the issue of “Protestant education in Church history or lack of eduction in Church history,” a Protestant vs. Catholic issue—which is creating unnecessary conflict.
I’m not a Catholic in Communion with Rome, neither is GKC—so we don’t fit your assumptions. Yet, both of us had experiences that were the opposite of yours.
Really, Rag Hanger. Lighten up a bit.
Anna
R
Rag_Hanger
Guest
That’s nice. You’re certainly welcome to your beliefs about us. Just as your posts are shaping my beliefs about you.As proof, he is so busy studying church history that he doesn’t have time to post this!
Just kidding!
I don’t doubt some churches may study it, but I have never been exposed to that. Please don’t take offense to my posts, I do not doubt you at all, just haven’t seen it in my area.
I guess the only church history I saw as a protestant was a warped and feeble attempt to explain the church as an invisible body.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I personally have never said Protestants never study church history.And if they are…awesome!
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Right on, Newsy!
I already outlined my own experience in post #l. And no Protestant member of my family, no Protestant friend, no Protestant pastor with whom I have had this discussion, and there are several, has a clue about the history of the Bible or the Church – which together are the history of Christianity.
My own dear neice is a member of a non-denominational ecclesial community, and teaches in their school. When I mention ecclesial history – even the history of her own organization – she doesn’t want to know and is offended that I would bring it up. That’s a typical reaction of all my relatives and friends. My Protestant nephew wants to be in ministry, and he has never studied the history of either Christianity or the Bible and doesn’t plan to.
Christianity wasn’t based on the Bible, but you’d think for those for whom the Bible is the only rule of faith would want to know where we got it and when.
That’s my “typical” experience. Protestants with whom I have contact typically don’t know and don’t want to know. And their pastors and teachers – if they know – don’t teach Christian history.
Jim Dandy
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
You don’t believe Protestantism began with Luther in the 16th century, or that the Quakers
(Society of Friends) began in England in the 17th century?
Jim Dandy
- Status