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

[Contarini]

Steve, it seems to me that the material I cited on Newman either supports what I’m saying or is irrelevant to it. If you suppose otherwise, you might point out just how that’s the case.

And no, I wasn’t thinking of the Jimmy Akin video, or any video.

 

[steve_b]

Steve, it seems to me that the material I cited on Newman either supports what I’m saying or is irrelevant to it. If you suppose otherwise, you might point out just how that’s the case.

Newman began writing his Essay in the autumn of 1844, and in early 1845 he leaves Anglicanism.

So I ask

• If Newman doesn’t see Anglicanism in 1845 as Protestantism of any form, as you suggest, and THAT notion only came to him years later, after he becomes Catholic, **why **then did he leave Anglicanism in 1845, and of all things join the Catholic Church?
• He obviously convinced himself through his work on his Essay, that he had to become Catholic or he would have remained Anglican…True?

Look over my links again that I posted #[218 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14173589&postcount=218)

As a suggestion I’ll quote from the opening of this link
My Mind as a Catholic: Part I

“From the time that I became a Catholic, of course I have no further history of my religious opinions to narrate. In saying this, I do not mean to say that my mind has been idle, or that I have given up thinking on theological subjects, but that I have had no variations to record and have had no anxiety of heart whatever. I have been in perfect peace and contentment; I never have had one doubt. I was not conscious to myself, on my conversion, of any change, intellectual or moral, wrought in my mind. I was not conscious of firmer faith in the fundamental truths of revelation or of more self-command; I had not more fervor; but it was like coming into port after a rough sea, and my happiness on that score remains to this day without interruption.”
C:

And no, I wasn’t thinking of the Jimmy Akin video, or any video.

ok

 

[Contarini]

So I ask

• If Newman doesn’t see Anglicanism in 1845 as Protestantism of any form, as you suggest, and THAT notion only came to him years later, after he becomes Catholic, **why **then did he leave Anglicanism in 1845, and of all things join the Catholic Church?
• He obviously convinced himself through his work on his Essay, that he had to become Catholic or he would have remained Anglican…True?

That’s precisely my point.

The bulk of the Essay is an argument against “Anglicanism” as he had been defining it–i.e., an attempt to create a kind of pristine “early Catholicism” based on the Fathers. First, though, he disposes of “Protestantism”–low-church Protestantism of the sort current in England in the early 19th century.

Of course once he had become Catholic and was looking back, he would see both of these things as manifestations of Protestantism. And that’s all the clearer now, since many Protestants have adopted a much more respectful attitude to the pre-Reformation Church than was common in Newman’s day.

I’m making a point specifically about the meaning of the phrase “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

That is not the argument that made Newman become Catholic. It’s a dismissive argument toward a position that was, in principle, dismissive toward the bulk of church history. But that isn’t enough to get you to Catholicism. For that Newman needed the entire argument of the Essay. The statement “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” isn’t a summary of the argument of the Essay, but part of the prolegomena, clearing the ground for the main argument.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

That’s precisely my point.

The bulk of the Essay is an argument against “*Anglicanism” as he had been defining it–*i.e., an attempt to create a kind of pristine “early Catholicism” based on the Fathers. First, though, he disposes of “Protestantism”–low-church Protestantism of the sort current in England in the early 19th century.

Is there an official consensus on that?

My impression was, I thought Newman wasn’t so much arguing against his definition of Anglicanism, and that’s why he wrote the Essay, but was arguing against how Anglicanism defined themselves.

Maybe THAT’S the distinction without much difference
C:

I’m making a point specifically about the meaning of the phrase “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

That is not the argument that made Newman become Catholic. It’s a dismissive argument toward a position that was, in principle, dismissive toward the bulk of church history.

Personally, I find that phrase a powerful one. It says so much with so few words.
C:

But that isn’t enough to get you to Catholicism. For that Newman needed the entire argument of the Essay.

I’m thinking he made up his mind long before he finished the Essay.
C:

The statement “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” isn’t a summary of the argument of the Essay, but part of the prolegomena, clearing the ground for the main argument.

Edwin

Ya have to admit, It’s one heck of a statement. It could easily be a summary statement to an argument…

IMV

 

[Contarini]

Is there an official consensus on that?

My impression was, I thought Newman wasn’t so much arguing against his definition of Anglicanism, and that’s why he wrote the Essay, but was arguing against how Anglicanism defined themselves.

By 1845, Anglo-Catholics were still a minority within Anglicanism. Indeed, they never ceased to be a minority, but they “leavened” how Anglicans as a whole saw themselves. In Newman’s Anglican days, they were basically a small group of passionately committed people claiming that “Anglicanism” was something that most Anglicans never dreamed it was.

Chillingworth, whom Newman takes as his example of “Protestantism,” was an Anglican, but he was not an adherent of what Newman meant by Anglicanism.

Personally, I find that phrase a powerful one. It says so much with so few words.

Of course you like it. That’s why you should refrain from repeating it smugly as so many Catholics do. It’s become nothing more than a schoolyard taunt.

In context, Newman meant something quite specific and quite powerfully true by it.

When you run into Protestants who openly despise church history and say that only the Bible matters, then you can use it with a good conscience.

What you can’t do with a good conscience is use it to dismiss the many excellent Protestant church historians of the past century or two as dishonest or ignorant or self-deluded. Protestantism has changed a lot since Newman’s day, partly because of Newman and the others in the Oxford Movement.

I’m thinking he made up his mind long before he finished the Essay.

No doubt. My point is that the Essay as a whole is the argument against “Anglicanism” and specifically for Catholicism.

Ya have to admit, It’s one heck of a statement. It could easily be a summary statement to an argument…

But in context, it clearly isn’t.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

By 1845, Anglo-Catholics were still a minority within Anglicanism. Indeed, they never ceased to be a minority, but they “leavened” how Anglicans as a whole saw themselves. In Newman’s Anglican days, they were basically a small group of passionately committed people claiming that “Anglicanism” was something that most Anglicans never dreamed it was.

I would suggest, that the point is, by his action, Newman demonstrated that even if a small group of Anglicans wanted to call themselves Catholic, or think of themselves as Catholic, they weren’t Catholics nor were they in the Catholic Church. That’s why he left and joined the Catholic Church
C:

Chillingworth, whom Newman takes as his example of “Protestantism,” was an Anglican, but he was not an adherent of what Newman meant by Anglicanism.

And I would say, bottom line, Newman was not focusing on personalities, but about truth.
C:

Of course you like it. That’s why you should refrain from repeating it smugly as so many Catholics do. It’s become nothing more than a schoolyard taunt.

He gave a powerful statement that is absolutely true, and he said it with so few words. Newman is far from giving a school yard taunt. He delivered the mother load of statements. It can’t be argued against.
C:

.
When you run into Protestants who openly despise church history and say that only the Bible matters, then you can use it with a good conscience.

Whether a Protestant despises history or embraces history, Newman’s phrase is powerful because it’s true. ESPECIALLY if, as you point out, the bible matters.
C:

What you can’t do with a good conscience is use it to dismiss the many excellent Protestant church historians of the past century or two as dishonest or ignorant or self-deluded. Protestantism has changed a lot since Newman’s day, partly because of Newman and the others in the Oxford Movement.

If they truly ARE “excellent Protestant historians” , then they won’t mind the historical reference AND challenge to try and refute it… which they can’t
C:

No doubt. My point is that the Essay as a whole is the argument against “Anglicanism” and specifically for Catholicism.

steve:

Ya have to admit, It’s one heck of a statement. It could easily be a summary statement to an argument…

But in context, it clearly isn’t.

Edwin

As Newman wrote

From introduction, (section 5 ) Christianity of History not Protestantism

Newman said “the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.”

Edwin, Newman’s words are clear, and as he said, to top it off,

** “if ever there were a safe truth , it is this”**

 

[Peter_J]

It’s become nothing more than a schoolyard taunt.

What do you have against schoolyards?

 

[Peter_J]

.

 

[benjohnson]

You would feel a growing sense of despair, which you would try to mask.

Even though I pester you sometimes, I want you to know that I at least commiserate with your plight as you have let us know.

I wish (and pray) that you find the solace of Christ’s church wherever you are.

 

[Peter_J]

.

But seriously, comparing schoolyards and the Internet seems a little insulting.

 

[LutheranScholar]

But seriously, comparing schoolyards and the Internet seems a little insulting.

Is that because there are times you’ll find more sophistication in the schoolyards?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

History is why I went from being Protestant to Roman Catholic, and history is a large part of why, 20 odd years later, I became Orthodox.

 

[steve_b]

History is why I went from being Protestant to Roman Catholic, and history is a large part of why, 20 odd years later, I became Orthodox.

Ahhhhh, Finally!!! :extrahappy:Someone who has done his historical homework

Someone who can finally answer my question that I’ve been asking for 12 yrs on these forums, in many different ways, but have received no answer… Yet. Maybe this is my lucky day

Here’s my question

When in history, do we first see the name “Orthodox Church”, in writing, properly referenced?

 

[MichaelP3]

Ahhhhh, Finally!!! :extrahappy:Someone who has done his historical homework

Someone who can finally answer my question that I’ve been asking for 12 yrs on these forums, in many different ways, but have received no answer… Yet. Maybe this is my lucky day

Here’s my question

When in history, do we first see the name “Orthodox Church”, in writing, properly referenced?

You do know Orthodox aren’t in communion with Catholics?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You do know Orthodox aren’t in communion with Catholics?

Which is why he’s asking the question!

 

[MichaelP3]

Which is why he’s asking the question!

What question? Then I as a Christian can claim the period from Antioch when that was first mentioned? He will need to clarify his question as well as supply the reason of Orthodox (name and whatever) when that is the very reason from history that IS a controversy.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

History is why I went from being Protestant to Roman Catholic, and history is a large part of why, 20 odd years later, I became Orthodox.

Very well then.

And what bible did history lead you to since they have different ones in the east?

No matter which one your branch of Orthodox holds to, they have the same 27 book NT as the rest of us thanks to the Catholic Church and the office of Pope that they oppose

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Ahhhhh, Finally!!! :extrahappy:Someone who has done his historical homework

Someone who can finally answer my question that I’ve been asking for 12 yrs on these forums, in many different ways, but have received no answer… Yet. Maybe this is my lucky day

Here’s my question

When in history, do we first see the name “Orthodox Church”, in writing, properly referenced?

I don’t know when the exact words “The Orthodox Church” first appear. To engage in research on the question, I would first have to know why it is important. On the face of it, I don’t see that it is at all important.

I DO know that reference to “the Orthodox faith” goes back at least to St. Irenaeus. Since the Faith is always in the context of the Church, to reference “the Orthodox faith” is effectively a reference to “the Orthodox Church”.

You do realize, I hope, that the Orthodox Church considers itself “the catholic church” as that term was used in the early and patristic Church. And with good reason. It even often officially refers to itself as the Orthodox Catholic Church".

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

What question? Then I as a Christian can claim the period from Antioch when that was first mentioned? He will need to clarify his question as well as supply the reason of Orthodox (name and whatever) when that is the very reason from history that IS a controversy.

The question of the use of the word Orthodox to identify the Church.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Very well then.

And what bible did history lead you to since they have different ones in the east?

No matter which one your branch of Orthodox holds to, they have the same 27 book NT as the rest of us thanks to the Catholic Church and the office of Pope that they oppose

Uh, it was the undivided Church that chose the canon of scripture. It was the Council of Nicaea that set the canon (except for the Apocalypse which wasn’t settled on until later) not “the office of the Pope”.