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

[prodromos]

Allow me to quote from Irenaeus to make MY point from the previous entry.

I’ve already shown you this Bk 1 v 3 Irenaeus names the Catholic Church

Arbitrary capitalisation by the translator. Please show that the word in Latin is used as a noun.

Here’s where he removes all doubt about Catholic Church being a proper name(noun) not an adjective

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

“This Church” he is referring to, has already been identified as the Catholic Church. He doesn’t have to keep referring to it over and over again as if there is some confusion about who he is and what Church he is defending. He is a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church

Your claim does not follow from the example.

Notice “This Church” he says all must agree with (regardless of pedigree ) on account of its preeminent authority. He not only says it’s the Church of Rome, he names 12 bishops of Rome in succession, from Peter at Rome, down to his day. And he says this teaching he’s giving came from Peter and Paul at Rome.

And as he stated in verse 1, he could have just as easily used Alexandria or Antioch to prove his point. Your interpretation makes a mockery of his claim in verse 1.

History is good

That’s why I like Newman’s quote

To be deep in history is to be Catholic.

Except that isn’t what Newman said.

 

[steve_b]

That was interesting, but I’m not sure what it has to do with the subject at hand. Of course, today “Catholic” and “Orthodox” according to common usage, are names of different churches.

Bp John was making the clear distinction between noun (Catholic and Orthodox), and adjective in the same names, and he was also showing how one “claiming” to be something doesn’t necessarily make that claim a reality…
E:

That is a far cry from showing that because a Church is commonly referred to as “the Catholic Church” that it is ipso facto identical to the “catholic church” referred to by the Fathers.

I answer that, in post #257 . Irenaeus clearly removes any doubt on that connection.
E:

That is the argument you seem to be making, and it is missing at least one step, which is that the commonly used name of a church necessarily reflects its ontological character. If that were true, we should all immediately join the local “Church of God”, because it is, well, the Church of God.

I gave written evidence properly referenced for my answers.

Where’s YOUR evidence? Where’s YOUR references properly referenced?

Going back to my ongoing question, *historically speaking, *

*when is the first time (or earliest time) we see in writing, properly referenced, the name “Orthodox Church”? *

If an answer to my question doesn’t provide evidence in writing, properly referenced, then my original question is still unanswered.

Newman made a powerful statement.,

---

“to be deep in history is to cease being a …”

---

It can be used in many ways

 

[steve_b]

Arbitrary capitalisation by the translator. Please show that the word in Latin is used as a noun.

Your claim does not follow from the example.

And *as he stated in verse 1, he could have just as easily used Alexandria or Antioch to prove his point. Your interpretation makes a mockery of his claim in verse 1.
*

Here’s the quotes I gave. Where is Alexandria or Antioch mentioned?

Bk 1 v 3 Irenaeus says ***"***the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said."

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 Irenaeus removes all doubt how to know and define which Church Irenaeus is talking about

to your other point, given the context, we can see Irenaeus is using Catholic Church as a noun, a proper name.
C:

Except that isn’t what Newman said.

Given that after he wrote his Essay, where he made that statement, he left Protestantism for Catholicism. I think it safe to say, we know what he meant by his statement

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Irenaeus clearly removes any doubt on that connection.

]

Uh, Irenaeaus lived in the second century. He can’t speak to whether the church known today as “the Catholic Church” is identical with his “catholic church”. This is getting too silly.

 

[prodromos]

Here’s the quotes I gave. Where is Alexandria or Antioch mentioned?

Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3 Irenaeus says “the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”

The Latin text is “cum ea,quae est Ecclesia universa, unam et eandem fidem habeat in universo mundo, quemadmodum praediximus”
In the Greek, the bold text is “Εκκλησίας πάσης”

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 Irenaeus removes all doubt how to know and define which Church Irenaeus is talking about

Verse 1;
It is within the power of all, therefore,** in every Church**, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.
Note that he said “in every Church”, not just Rome. He gives Rome as the example because it is well known and because it would be tedious to demonstrate the same for all the Churches. Hence he could have used Antioch, or Alexandria or Ephesus or Corinth or even Byzantium.

to your other point, given the context, we can see Irenaeus is using Catholic Church as a noun, a proper name.

Given the Latin and the Greek text quoted above, we can see that your claim is nonsense.

Given that after he wrote his Essay, where he made that statement, he left Protestantism for Catholicism. I think it safe to say, we know what he meant by his statement

I think it is safer to quote what he said, and not to post false statements.

 

[steve_b]

Verse 1;It is within the power of all, therefore,** in every Church**, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.Note that he said “in every Church”, not just Rome. He gives Rome as the example because it is well known and because it would be tedious to demonstrate the same for all the Churches. Hence he could have used Antioch, or Alexandria or Ephesus or Corinth or even Byzantium.

Given the Latin and the Greek text quoted above, we can see that your claim is nonsense.

I think it is safer to quote what he said, and not to post false statements.

You quote part of V1, and try to make your case on that part alone? Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1 ]

I quoted verses 1-3 to make the case Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 ]

Your narrative ignores context, AND you contradict what Irenaeus wrote. And in contradicting what he wrote, you put yourself into the group that Irenaeus is writing against.

• He points out the apostles (particularly the ones he will mention in the following verses) leave behind as their successors, delivering to those successors their own place of government. Irenaeus names 12 bishops of Rome down to his day in succession of Peter.
• Meaning, Peter’s position, as leader of the Church on earth is passed on to the next bishop who succeeds him, in the government of the Church……namely that bishop will be leader of the Church on earth. And that succession continues

Re: V2 (which you ignored)

• Irenaeus, considers there is pedigree for all the Churches, but reduces his point to the one Church founded at Rome by Peter and Paul. He says by necessity, every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre-eminent authority
• How does Irenaeus say that information and faith comes down to Irenaeus day? From Peter and Paul at Rome, and by the succession of bishops in as much as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously, and by those faithful men who exist everywhere.

IOW if one doesn’t believe this tradition from the apostles, and won’t agree with Rome, they are not following apostolic tradition, and are in the group Irenaeus is writing against.

When you said above, “Hence he could have used Antioch, or Alexandria or Ephesus or Corinth or even Byzantium” that’s wrong. It contradicts the whole point Irenaeus is making about the Church of Rome

Re: V3 (which you ignored)

Irenaeus then names in succession from Peter, 12 bishops of Rome down to his day. As Irenaeus said, each of those individual bishop , in their own time, was the leader of the entire Church that Peter was over.

• Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? No. Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.And he said where this tradition of Petrine succession came from. It was Peter and Paul at Rome.
• Irenaeus makes another finer point. Those who keep to this understanding are those where the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously and by faithful men who exist **everywhere. **Ergo those who don’t keep to this tradition, are the unfaithful, because they don’t preserve apostolic tradition, and they are the ones then that Irenaeus is writing against
  
  Irenaeus in this work then
• refutes opponants who argue the papacy is a later invention.
• refutes the notion that every Church EVERYWHERE agreeing with the bishop of Rome is a novelty of later invention.

When I quoted the following link, you can see that Catholic Church is the name of the Church, a noun, not an adjective.

Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3]“while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world,”

 

[YoungThomas]

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.

With all respect to Cardinal Newman, I think it is a pretty silly statement, though obviously (and unsurprisingly) you failed to include the context of the quotation. History doesn’t “point” to any religion. But perhaps he means that if we discuss theology, philosophy, and the doctrines of the faith in the context of history we get a better understanding of the true apostolic faith than we do by simply reading the Bible. For once one understands that reading the Bible has next to nothing to do with understanding Christianity, one understands that the majority of Protestantism is utter hogwash.

Further I’ll note that one’s understanding of history is always underpinned by his worldview. Hence why it’s unsurprising that modern, secular, liberal history doesn’t “point” to the Church.

 

[steve_b]

Uh, Irenaeaus lived in the second century. He can’t speak to whether the church known today as "the Catholic Church" is identical with his "catholic church". This is getting too silly.

Re:Bp Irenaeus

Bp Irenaeus was a disciple of Bp Polycarp. Do you know who Polycarp was?
if you want to read what Polycarp wrote, The Martyrdom of Polycarp

Polycarp and Ignatius were contemporaries and 1st century bishops, who lived into the 2nd century, and were both martyred. Both were direct disciples of John the apostle.

Bishops Irenaeus and Polycarp, were from Smyrna, a town located in present day Turkey. Because Irenaeus heard Polycarp speak, then in terms of historical time line, and connection to an apostle, Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle.

BTW, did you notice in The Martyrdom of Polycarp , how Catholic Church is used?

 

[prodromos]

BTW, did you notice in The Martyrdom of Polycarp , how Catholic Church is used?

Yes, in the Greek text it is καθολικής εκκλησίας. Neither word is capitalised and καθολικής is an adjective, not a noun.

 

[prodromos]

When I quoted the following link, you can see that Catholic Church is the name of the Church, a noun, not an adjective.

Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3]“while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world,”

I posted the Latin text which this document was translated from and also the Greek from which the Latin was translated. Neither text uses the word “catholic”, so it is remarkable that the English translator chose that word in the first place, and in both Greek and Latin the word is not a noun but an adjective.

I’ll address the rest of your post at a later stage if I feel like it. It is painful editing out all the hyperlinks you include in your posts which I find necessary to have readable text with which to frame a response.

 

[Rohzek]

Anyone with knowledge of classical languages knows that capitalization and spaces is a modern thing. The terms “Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and x-Protestant Church” didn’t come about as proper nouns until the Protestant Reformation. Each referred to themselves as catholic and orthodox. Outsiders were simply called heretics, or a specific heresy, or schismatics. This proper noun business is something of an English and modern fabrication that was done during the translation process to make it easier for the reader.

 

[Contarini]

That’s why I like Newman’s quote

To be deep in history is to be Catholic.

But your posts on this thread have demonstrated that the converse is certainly not true. It’s possible to be Catholic–as you are–and to have an active aversion to going deeply into history–as you clearly do.

I have cited the context for Newman’s statement over and over again, and you just keep repeating “but since he became Catholic after writing this he must have meant it in the very broad sense I want him to mean it.” That’s not being deep in history.

You have then hijacked the thread by an unprovoked and very silly attack on the Orthodox on the most superficial terminological grounds.

Again, that’s not being deep in history.

.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’ve followed this Catholic/ Orthodox discussion and I’m not understanding the point. Not really about names but more about practice. Arabic Chiristians call God by the name “allah” but I’ll never confuse our God with that described in Koran.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, in the Greek text it is καθολικής εκκλησίας. Neither word is capitalised and καθολικής is an adjective, not a noun.

Greek Study Bible (Acts 9:31)

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.

ἁγίου πνεύματος , = holy spirit

Why isn’t the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity capitalized in Greek? Yet when it is translated into English it is capitalized.

 

[steve_b]

I posted the Latin text which this document was translated from and also the Greek from which the Latin was translated. Neither text uses the word “catholic”, so it is remarkable that the English translator chose that word in the first place, and in both Greek and Latin the word is not a noun but an adjective.

Here is what you wrote from v1

“cum ea,quae est Ecclesia universa, unam et eandem fidem habeat in universo mundo, quemadmodum praediximus”
In the Greek, the bold text is “Εκκλησίας πάσης”

I’ll highlight what you draw from in both the Latin and Greek translations

Verse 1;It is within the power of all, therefore,** in every Church**, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.Now what is it you’re trying to prove?.

I didn’t quote from v1 of Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 ] to make the point I made. I quoted from
Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3]“while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world,” and I also quoted from Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 ] to show the ONE Church everyone throughout the world had to agree with. The Church of Rome. THAT is what makes those who agree with this Church, Catholic

Irenaeus only has to mention he’s defending the Catholic Church ONE TIME, and he really doesn’t have to mention Catholic Church over and over again every time he even mentions “Church”. We already know what Church he is in. So when he only mentions “Church” or “The Church” we still know then what Church he is talking about. The Catholic Church
p:

I’ll address the rest of your post at a later stage if I feel like it. It is painful editing out all the hyperlinks you include in your posts which I find necessary to have readable text with which to frame a response.

The hyperlinks are there to

• prove that my points with references properly referenced, are not my opinions.
• make it quick and easy for any person reading my post to obtain that same information with a click on the link.

.

 

[steve_b]

Anyone with knowledge of classical languages knows that capitalization and spaces is a modern thing. The terms “Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and x-Protestant Church” didn’t come about as proper nouns until the Protestant Reformation.

Source?
R:

Each referred to themselves as catholic and orthodox. Outsiders were simply called heretics, or a specific heresy, or schismatics.

If things are as nebulous as you describe, how then could anyone be an “outsider”, a heretic or schismatic, since everyone with differing beliefs can name themselves either catholic or orthodox?
R:

This proper noun business is something of an English and modern fabrication that was done during the translation process to make it easier for the reader.

Source?

 

[steve_b]

But your posts on this thread have demonstrated that the converse is certainly not true.

C:

It’s possible to be Catholic–as you are–and to have an active aversion to going deeply into history–as you clearly do.

I’ve gladly taken us deep in history, back to the 1st century with the name Catholic Church, with evidence properly referenced. No aversion there.
C:

and you just keep repeating “but since he became Catholic after writing this he must have meant it in the very broad sense I want him to mean it.” That’s not being deep in history.

This is what I said back to you

Conterini :

Except that isn’t what Newman said.

steve:

Given that after he wrote his Essay, where he made that statement, he left Protestantism for Catholicism. I think it safe to say, we know what he meant by his statement

from #261

C:

You have then hijacked the thread by an unprovoked and very silly attack on the Orthodox on the most superficial terminological grounds.

Again, that’s not being deep in history.

.

Not so fast

Looking at Newman’s statement,

---

“If one goes deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”***

THEN what does one find if they DO go deep?

I’m merely pursuing the conclusion he came to using evidence properly referenced

THAT’S going deep in history… as Newman said to do

 

[prodromos]

Here is what you wrote from v1

“cum ea,quae est Ecclesia universa, unam et eandem fidem habeat in universo mundo, quemadmodum praediximus”
In the Greek, the bold text is “Εκκλησίας πάσης”

I’ll highlight what you draw from in both the Latin and Greek translations

Verse 1;It is within the power of all, therefore,** in every Church**, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.Now what is it you’re trying to prove?.

Well I can see that you’ve just proved you can’t read Latin or Greek and apparently you have difficulty reading my posts.

I didn’t quote from v1 of Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 ] to make the point I made. I quoted from
Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3]“while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world,” and I also quoted from Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 ] to show the ONE Church everyone throughout the world had to agree with. The Church of Rome. THAT is what makes those who agree with this Church, Catholic

Irenaeus only has to mention he’s defending the Catholic Church ONE TIME, and he really doesn’t have to mention Catholic Church over and over again every time he even mentions “Church”. We already know what Church he is in. So when he only mentions “Church” or “The Church” we still know then what Church he is talking about. The Catholic Church

Ok, following is the Latin text for Book 3, Chapter 3, verse 1Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatum, in omni Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare cos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in ecclessis, et successiones eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur.
Here again, as stated in the post where I originally quoted it, is the Latin text from the end of Book 1, Chapter 10, verse 3cum ea,quae est Ecclesia universa, unam et eandem fidem habeat in universo mundo, quemadmodum praediximus
My point is that you don’t have a point, since the word “catholic” does not actually exist in the Latin or Greek text, but only in an apparently bad English translation. Some scholars have made the comment that the Latin translation of St Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, is also quite poor, as it has him stating things that were simply not true, such as in Book 3, Chapter 3, verse 2, where he calls the church at Rome “maximae, et antiquissimae”, “the largest and most ancient”.
Your whole premise has been built on a false notion from a bad translation

 

[prodromos]

BTW steve b, you also seem to be confusing my posts with Contarini’s and vice versa.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Re:Bp Irenaeus

Bp Irenaeus was a disciple of Bp Polycarp. Do you know who Polycarp was?
if you want to read what Polycarp wrote, The Martyrdom of Polycarp

Polycarp and Ignatius were contemporaries and 1st century bishops, who lived into the 2nd century, and were both martyred. Both were direct disciples of John the apostle.

Bishops Irenaeus and Polycarp, were from Smyrna, a town located in present day Turkey. Because Irenaeus heard Polycarp speak, then in terms of historical time line, and connection to an apostle, Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle.

I’m well aware of who Polycarp was. You need to up your game. You’re debating with educated adults here. You didn’t do anything to support your notion that somehow St. Irenaeaus was prophesying that whatever church officially had “Catholic” in in it’s name would be the successor of the second century catholic and apostolic church.

BTW, did you notice in The Martyrdom of Polycarp , how Catholic Church is used?