To Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

  • Thread starter Thread starter MichaelP3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MichaelP3

Guest
Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Why don’t more Protestant historians become Catholic?

This was a very interesting thing when I saw the apologist question and answer. It was in fact a very interesting thing. Let me explain quickly.

I grew up Protestant never really thinking about much or even Catholicism. Until I met my fiancee who was a very Polish Catholic. She was doing her bachelors in History and I love history. So obviously we got into it very deep. Long story short, today, 2 years later she is very Protestant and I can after going so deep into history, say, because of History, I can’t see myself becoming Catholic any time soon.

Can some people tell me maybe how history taught them otherwise. And please, we all know the basics, I mean in depth history that makes sense. I am not here to accuse anyone, I would just like to know some understandings.
 
The phrase doesn’t really mean anything, it’s just an example of Catholic intolerance for their fellow Christians. It would be no different to me coming up with some nonsense like “to be deep in Scripture is to cease to be Catholic”. 🤷
 
It has nothing to do with intolerance. That’s just rude to say. I grew up protestant and converted because of learning that the Catholic Church was the first. That my own church was founded 1600+ years afterwards.
 
History is one of the reasons I switched from evangelicalism to Anglicanism. One thing I learned is that the history of the Church is very, very messy. So much so, that simple explanations and quick apologetic responses strike me as inherently dishonest. It’s not just ancient history though. Catholic history since the 1500’s, particularly in the 19th century, is why I’ll never be a Roman Catholic.
 
To me that phrase is true. The principles of the reformation, Sola scriptura and the basic abandonment of tradition and the Church as a real institution established by Christ, do not flow from the fathers. The idea of an invisible Church being the primary sense of what constitutes the Church was an idea Protestantism needed to establish itself, yet it is not in the early Church who were far more critical of those outside the Church than most of us are today.

I remember reading the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and I thought and still think Protestantism can’t be true if Ignatius was a genuine disciple of the Apostle John or from the apostolic community of Antioch.
 
IgnatianPhilo

Can you please tell me where to find or send me these letters to understand your thinking?
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
To me that phrase is true. The principles of the reformation, Sola scriptura and the basic abandonment of tradition and the Church as a real institution established by Christ, do not flow from the fathers. The idea of an invisible Church being the primary sense of what constitutes the Church was an idea Protestantism needed to establish itself, yet it is not in the early Church who were far more critical of those outside the Church than most of us are today.

I remember reading the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and I thought and still think Protestantism can’t be true if Ignatius was a genuine disciple of the Apostle John or from the apostolic community of Antioch.
Click to expand...
Very good response!

That is the my understanding of Newman’s quote, in a nutshell.

He’s not saying that history proves Catholicism, particularly Roman Catholicism, but that it does disprove Protestantism. All Protestants I have known have some notion of “The Early Church”, because one can’t just accept the Bible as a closed book without having some curiosity about its origins, and their (Protestant) notions of the early church are completely contradicted by recorded history. They live their whole lives content with this scant knowledge, however if they were to investigate it, and check their assumptions, then they would have to abandon it - and then question their Protestantism.

It’s worthwhile quoting the memorable passage from the *Apologia * which precedes the OP’s subject line.
History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of color rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one things at least 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.
Click to expand...
(As a personal note, I was fortunate to read the whole of Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita sua as a Protestant, before the internet, which has turned these passages into “sound bites”. So I remember reading them in context, and just being knocked out by them. They hit me right between the eyes as “true”).
 
lantheria said:
The phrase doesn’t really mean anything, it’s just an example of Catholic intolerance for their fellow Christians. It would be no different to me coming up with some nonsense like “to be deep in Scripture is to cease to be Catholic”. 🤷
Click to expand...
If you’ve read his ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, that assertion will carry more weight.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Why don’t more Protestant historians become Catholic?

This was a very interesting thing when I saw the apologist question and answer. It was in fact a very interesting thing. Let me explain quickly.

I grew up Protestant never really thinking about much or even Catholicism. Until I met my fiancee who was a very Polish Catholic. She was doing her bachelors in History and I love history. So obviously we got into it very deep. Long story short, today, 2 years later she is very Protestant and I can after going so deep into history, say, because of History, I can’t see myself becoming Catholic any time soon.

Can some people tell me maybe how history taught them otherwise. And please, we all know the basics, I mean in depth history that makes sense. I am not here to accuse anyone, I would just like to know some understandings.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting question.

I would be as interested in one-two salient points dredged from history (where it is indeed good to look for such things) that convinced you of the opposite.

Just curious.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Why don’t more Protestant historians become Catholic?

This was a very interesting thing when I saw the apologist question and answer. It was in fact a very interesting thing. Let me explain quickly.

I grew up Protestant never really thinking about much or even Catholicism. Until I met my fiancee who was a very Polish Catholic. She was doing her bachelors in History and I love history. So obviously we got into it very deep. Long story short, today, 2 years later she is very Protestant and I can after going so deep into history, say, because of History, I can’t see myself becoming Catholic any time soon.

Can some people tell me maybe how history taught them otherwise. And please, we all know the basics, I mean in depth history that makes sense. I am not here to accuse anyone, I would just like to know some understandings.
Click to expand...
Have you ever asked yourself why it is that everyone with a degree in history still do not agree on all historical facts?

Peace!!!
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
It has nothing to do with intolerance. That’s just rude to say. I grew up protestant and converted because of learning that the Catholic Church was the first. That my own church was founded 1600+ years afterwards.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Newman was not attacking anyone or even attempting to persuade anyone. He didn’t create pithy aphorisms to be thrown around out-of-context.

The line is part of a lengthy book describing his own conversion to Catholicism, in which his own deep knowledge of history played a significant part.

John Henry Newman. Apologia Pro Vita Sua
 
theropod said:
History is one of the reasons I switched from evangelicalism to Anglicanism. One thing I learned is that the history of the Church is very, very messy. So much so, that simple explanations and quick apologetic responses strike me as inherently dishonest. It’s not just ancient history though. Catholic history since the 1500’s, particularly in the 19th century, is why I’ll never be a Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
Messy. Complicated. Full of people and stuff. Everybody’s history, in fact.
 
A major problem in liberal education, especially in secular institutions, is the lack of an alternative perspective. The majority view tends to prevail, whether it’s the Great Tale of the American Revolution or the lack of history told from the First Nation or African perspective. Such is the case in the history of Catholicism as told from a secular, or protestant perspective. The major fault in this problem lies in Catholic institutions that fail to provide an authentic Catholic perspective, instead solidifying the prejudice or even intensifying the anti-Catholic rhetoric, even while on the Catholic payroll or labelling themselves under the Catholic title. This is a great disservice, both to the historical study and to the Church.
 
theropod said:
History is one of the reasons I switched from evangelicalism to Anglicanism. One thing I learned is that the history of the Church is very, very messy. So much so, that simple explanations and quick apologetic responses strike me as inherently dishonest. It’s not just ancient history though. Catholic history since the 1500’s, particularly in the 19th century, is why I’ll never be a Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
What specifically happened in the 19th century?
 
theropod said:
History is one of the reasons I switched from evangelicalism to Anglicanism. One thing I learned is that the history of the Church is very, very messy. So much so, that simple explanations and quick apologetic responses strike me as inherently dishonest. It’s not just ancient history though. Catholic history since the 1500’s, particularly in the 19th century, is why I’ll never be a Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
may I ask what happened in the 1800’s that has so turned you against being Roman Catholic?
 
sticknstring73 said:
What specifically happened in the 19th century?
Click to expand...
7_Sorrows said:
may I ask what happened in the 1800’s that has so turned you against being Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...
To make it short, in the 1800’s it was Vatican I and the innovation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I should add the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950 to the list. I view these as innovations that I just can’t accept. No doubt some don’t consider them to be innovations, but I think I stand with all the other Apostolic branches in considering them to be without proof of their apostolicity. Before the 19th century though, there’s the Roman version of Purgatory that I have a difficult time accepting. The Orthodox, I think, have a more biblical take on it.

It’s one thing to be born into the RCC and accept these. It’s another thing to convert and evaluate each of these on your own. There is a concept of “some should, all may, none must” that I think should be applied to some of these beliefs, but Rome has over the centuries just dictated more than I can accept.

I couldn’t in good conscience convert and cross my fingers behind my back about some of these things.
 
theropod said:
To make it short, in the 1800’s it was Vatican I and the innovation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I should add the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950 to the list. I view these as innovations that I just can’t accept. No doubt some don’t consider them to be innovations, but I think I stand with all the other Apostolic branches in considering them to be without proof of their apostolicity. Before the 19th century though, there’s the Roman version of Purgatory that I have a difficult time accepting. The Orthodox, I think, have a more biblical take on it.

It’s one thing to be born into the RCC and accept these. It’s another thing to convert and evaluate each of these on your own. There is a concept of “some should, all may, none must” that I think should be applied to some of these beliefs, but Rome has over the centuries just dictated more than I can accept.

I couldn’t in good conscience convert and cross my fingers behind my back about some of these things.
Click to expand...
This is understandable, in theory.
 
theropod said:
History is one of the reasons I switched from evangelicalism to Anglicanism. One thing I learned is that the history of the Church is very, very messy. So much so, that simple explanations and quick apologetic responses strike me as inherently dishonest. It’s not just ancient history though. Catholic history since the 1500’s, particularly in the 19th century, is why I’ll never be a Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
For me it is vice versa. The promise of Jesus to Saint Peter is why the Catholic Church is still around today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top