And what modern secular academic institution today takes the “Catholic” view of history as a given? Name me one!
Well, it was a gazillion years ago, but my first real picture of the early Church came from reading the eaerly Church Fathers at The University of Michigan – as secular an institution as you will likely find anywhere, even in those days when the occasional co-ed still graduated as a virgin.
Unfortuantely, the fact that most people in college these days have never even heard of the Church Fathers kinda speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
Maybe they’re not taking early mediaeval history?Unfortuantely, the fact that most people in college these days have never even heard of the Church Fathers kinda speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
I have my undergraduate degree in history. In every class dealing with the emerging of the Church all text match what is taught by the Church in regards to her history. I came to the conclusion that until the Enlightenment there was no differentiation between history and Church history after the edict of Milan (in the West at least).
Perhaps, but the contention that the Catholic world view is dominating, nay “infiltrating,” our institutions of higher education in some sort of conspiracy to take over is just plain ridiculous, don’t you agree?
I know what I wrote sounds ridiculous, but this is the thinking of many non-Catholics in regards to the historical data. They think the Catholic Church has fudged the facts in its favor and so whatever one reads of the historical record is untrustworthy. My thoughts are as yours in this regards. It does sound ridiculous.
Remind them there was no Protestantism to reference before 1530 or so AD. So any alleged rewrite had to come after that.
Depends on the class you take. I got a pretty standard “Church Version” of Christianity in my Philosophy classes at UNT (public uni.) But, if you take a broad “History of the World” course, it’s more about wars and technological innovation, and given that covering thousands of years of history in a semester is daunting at best, that seemed appropriate.
I got the same at Iowa State University.
Actually you can. Seminary Schools that present the writings of the Early Church fathers leave out in their text books, the phrases and quotes that support the Catholic position. It’s an issue of “Selective History” meaning only tell that portion of the history that supports your veiw points. Just as Certain translations of the Bible depict the “Context” of the translators not the “Real Context” of Christ and the Apostles…Of course, even the secular institutions have to deal with the existence of the Church and its impact on Western civilization in particular. But, the idea that these institutions have been hoodwinked by the Church for centuries is silly. After all, most of the great universities of Europe owe their existence to the Church because they were founded by Catholic orders/dioceses. How can you infiltrate what already belongs to you?
That’s not my experience of Protestant seminaries. Some Protestant seminaries don’t emphasize early Christianity very much, that’s true. And obviously everyone is somewhat selective. But Protestants generally have no problem saying that there are certain parts of the Fathers’ teachings that they disagree with. (How much, of course, varies a lot from one Protestant group to another, and there are some ideas of some Fathers that Catholics don’t agree with either.) They may not emphasize them much. But that doesn’t mean that they cover them up. You are way too paranoid.Actually you can. Seminary Schools that present the writings of the Early Church fathers leave out in their text books, the phrases and quotes that support the Catholic position. It’s an issue of “Selective History” meaning only tell that portion of the history that supports your veiw points. Just as Certain translations of the Bible depict the “Context” of the translators not the “Real Context” of Christ and the Apostles…
It’s all SELECTIVE
I’m a bit baffled by this statement. What exactly are you thinking of? There are a number of points where the consensus of secular historians is not very friendly to the Catholic conception of the Church’s past. One of the most obvious ones is the belief of most patristic scholars (including many Catholics) that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome until the mid-2nd century. Another would be the clearly innovative nature of Eucharistic devotion in the High Middle Ages–most textbooks present this as something new, though of course with roots in previous theology and piety.
That is the exact problem with Protestants. The early church fathers were some of the ones that witnessed first hand what Christ taught and the others were the diciples and/or successors to the Apostles who learned directly from their teachings.
Fine, but they themselves renounced any claim to infallibility. And there are plenty of things in the Fathers that Catholics don’t believe either. I don’t dispute that most Protestants (Anglicans being a notable exception) are farther away from patristic Christianity than Catholics are. And that’s a serious problem, which Protestants need to work on. If the Fathers teach something as true without significant disagreeement, then that teaching should rarely if ever be rejected.
Emphatically. The Fathers are far more authoritative than the writers of the 16th century–the Protestant Reformers *or *the Fathers of Trent.
Very true. And by extension, the Fathers of the second and third centuries would know more about the NT context than the Fathers of the fourth and fifth. Hence, the RC (and I’m using “RC” deliberately because it’s not so much of an Eastern concept) understanding of development can’t be allowed to muzzle the voices of earlier Christian tradition when they call later developments into question. I’m not interested in condemning or rejecting these later developments. But when Catholics claim that such developments as icon theology or a metabolic theory of the Eucharist or devotion to the saints are binding on all Christians, it’s fair for Protestants to question this on the basis of earlier Christian records (supremely the NT but also the earlier Fathers).
What would that plank be? I don’t understand you. I am certainly not the one making wild claims of cover-ups. I think the Catholic tradition of patristic scholarship is a noble and honorable one and we Protestants have a lot to learn from you. But we have contributed our bit as well. Indeed, it’s often claimed that the scholarly field of patristics was basically created by the Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard.And I am not being paranoid. Before you try to point out the splinter in my eye, you should remove the plank from yours!
