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

[Reuben_J]

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.

Thanks for coming in and welcome to the Forum.

It is a brave thing to do with the question in a Catholic forum. But it’s a good one. And I also want to know.

I would begin by saying that the Catholic Church is the one left by Jesus. It’s so deep in History of Christianity that if one sees this fact, one is compelled to be Catholic. You did not and more so your fiancee even has to leave her Church. To me that is really a mystery .

God bless.

 

[Tomyris]

For me, Newman’s assertion is simply not valid. Many Protestants have been deep in history yet have not converted. History is messy. The history I have read has led me to a different understanding of the historical role of the bishop of Rome and its development into the papacy than the often overly simplified portrayal of a smooth calm recognition from the beginning and historically unquestioned supremacy that some seem to believe happened. It has been more like a riot. Sometimes it was, literally, a riot.

But that is not this thread. This is not about the validation of Catholicism as much as the invalidation of Protestant thought. And yet my reading of history makes me think that there was a mixed bag of teaching all along, despite councils and proclamations and what not. Basil would look on the church today, with divisions and arguments and schisms and so forth, and say it is just about the same as it was in his day. I suspect he would be surprised at the role of the Pope, as he looked more towards Athanasius as the leader of the church than he ever did look westward. But then he was Eastern.

It is a mess. Simplified apologetics and post-card proclamations turn me off. One liners are pulled out of context and slapped around when sometimes, as with Newman’s, their potency would increase in context. But it takes time to read all this stuff. Sigh.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

For me, Newman’s assertion is simply not valid. Many Protestants have been deep in history yet have not converted. History is messy. The history I have read has led me to a different understanding of the historical role of the bishop of Rome and its development into the papacy than the often overly simplified portrayal of a smooth calm recognition from the beginning and historically unquestioned supremacy that some seem to believe happened. It has been more like a riot. Sometimes it was, literally, a riot.

But that is not this thread. This is not about the validation of Catholicism as much as the invalidation of Protestant thought. And yet my reading of history makes me think that there was a mixed bag of teaching all along, despite councils and proclamations and what not. Basil would look on the church today, with divisions and arguments and schisms and so forth, and say it is just about the same as it was in his day. I suspect he would be surprised at the role of the Pope, as he looked more towards Athanasius as the leader of the church than he ever did look westward. But then he was Eastern.

It is a mess. Simplified apologetics and post-card proclamations turn me off. One liners are pulled out of context and slapped around when sometimes, as with Newman’s, their potency would increase in context. But it takes time to read all this stuff. Sigh.

Do you see confirmation of an evangelical outlook in the fathers through history then?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

For me, Newman’s assertion is simply not valid. Many Protestants have been deep in history yet have not converted. History is messy. The history I have read has led me to a different understanding of the historical role of the bishop of Rome and its development into the papacy than the often overly simplified portrayal of a smooth calm recognition from the beginning and historically unquestioned supremacy that some seem to believe happened. It has been more like a riot. Sometimes it was, literally, a riot.

But that is not this thread. This is not about the validation of Catholicism as much as the invalidation of Protestant thought. And yet my reading of history makes me think that there was a mixed bag of teaching all along, despite councils and proclamations and what not. Basil would look on the church today, with divisions and arguments and schisms and so forth, and say it is just about the same as it was in his day. I suspect he would be surprised at the role of the Pope, as he looked more towards Athanasius as the leader of the church than he ever did look westward. But then he was Eastern.

It is a mess. Simplified apologetics and post-card proclamations turn me off. One liners are pulled out of context and slapped around when sometimes, as with Newman’s, their potency would increase in context. But it takes time to read all this stuff. Sigh.

Like I said, the Catholic Church is still existent today because of Jesus’ promise to Peter, that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

 

[Rohzek]

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.

My own studies of the medieval history convinced me to abandon Catholicism.

 

[7_Sorrows]

My own studies of the medieval history convinced me to abandon Catholicism.

why?

 

[MichaelP3]

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.

Well first one that always comes to mind is absolutely no proof that Peter ever even was in Rome. Now I do know all the theories about Babylon and so on but they are all still theories. No person will be awarded a PhD in History by using theories.

Secondly I came to notice there is a big difference to what I consider the Early Church and the Catholic Church today. For instance the Palagian Heresy. The council of Carthage that denounced him after after the Bishop of Rome even affirmed it. But the interesting part is how they denounced it at the council. Stating the following:

1.Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2.New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3.Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4.The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God’s commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5.Without God’s grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6.Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7.The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespasses”, not only to others, but also to themselves.
8.The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.[12]

The points in bold to me seem like the very essence of the Reformation.

And also St Augustine’s writings on Mat 16:18. It is the one father who had more to say about that verse than any other father and he never defined it as Rome do now.

Just 3 points but it can go a lot further.

And My thread started with history. From that perspective. Not beliefs like apostolic succession and therefore its true because Rome said so.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Thanks for coming in and welcome to the Forum.

It is a brave thing to do with the question in a Catholic forum. But it’s a good one. And I also want to know.

I would begin by saying that the Catholic Church is the one left by Jesus. It’s so deep in History of Christianity that if one sees this fact, one is compelled to be Catholic. You did not and more so your fiancee even has to leave her Church. To me that is really a mystery .

God bless.

Hi Reuben

Thank you

By saying it is so deep in History can be true in theory, but being the same as “the Church left by Christ” is something I can’t agree with. By reading all the epistles in the New Testament and seeing the Church that was taught in the early stages I would have no problem being part of that church. One that was focussed on Christ and His sacrifice instead of the thousands of additional points in the Catechism. I will truly feel compelled to be part of the Church of the Apostles, but this is not the Catholic Church of today.

My Fiancee didn’t have to leave her church. I was even willing to marry in the Catholic Church but obviously we talked and she did her own research.

Regards

 

[Reuben_J]

Well first one that always comes to mind is absolutely no proof that Peter ever even was in Rome.

I disagree. This is like an atheist who says there is no proof that Jesus really exist.

 

[MichaelP3]

I disagree. This is like an atheist who says there is no proof that Jesus really exist.

I think you misunderstood me.

Firstly I will never place Peter in a comparison with Jesus. And secondly, I think there is a lot of historical proof that Jesus did exist. Even Jews and Muslims admit it.

The resurrection comes with faith. But that was never my point. To me it would seem like one should have faith that Peter was in Rome then?

 

[Reuben_J]

I think you misunderstood me.

Firstly I will never place Peter in a comparison with Jesus. And secondly, I think there is a lot of historical proof that Jesus did exist. Even Jews and Muslims admit it.

The resurrection comes with faith. But that was never my point. To me it would seem like one should have faith that Peter was in Rome then?

I have come to meet with certain people who said there is no proof that Jesus exist. Yes, sure, there are lots of books and documents about the existence of Jesus, but they would not accept these as proof.

 

[MichaelP3]

I have come to meet with certain people who said there is no proof that Jesus exist. Yes, sure, there are lots of books and documents about the existence of Jesus, but they would not accept these as proof.

I agree with you there. To me these people don’t want to believe Jesus existed then. To take this statement the other way around. Not having any historical proof, I should want to believe Peter was in Rome. And it is a very critical point as to the foundation of the Catholic Church. Something as important as this should be somewhere. But it seems like not a single person saw it as important to write about it even if it is true?

 

[GKC]

Well first one that always comes to mind is absolutely no proof that Peter ever even was in Rome. Now I do know all the theories about Babylon and so on but they are all still theories. No person will be awarded a PhD in History by using theories.

Secondly I came to notice there is a big difference to what I consider the Early Church and the Catholic Church today. For instance the Palagian Heresy. The council of Carthage that denounced him after after the Bishop of Rome even affirmed it. But the interesting part is how they denounced it at the council. Stating the following:

1.Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2.New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3.Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4.The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God’s commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5.Without God’s grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6.Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7.The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespasses”, not only to others, but also to themselves.
8.The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.[12]

The points in bold to me seem like the very essence of the Reformation.

And also St Augustine’s writings on Mat 16:18. It is the one father who had more to say about that verse than any other father and he never defined it as Rome do now.

Just 3 points but it can go a lot further.

And My thread started with history. From that perspective. Not beliefs like apostolic succession and therefore its true because Rome said so.

Regards

You have indeed been digging. Thank you.

 

[Reuben_J]

I agree with you there. To me these people don’t want to believe Jesus existed then. To take this statement the other way around. Not having any historical proof, I should want to believe Peter was in Rome. And it is a very critical point as to the foundation of the Catholic Church. Something as important as this should be somewhere. But it seems like not a single person saw it as important to write about it even if it is true?

I have a friend who told me that even though we put it writing, he did not believe that Jesus was crucified, buried and rose again. Then it was just his word against mine.

btw, in your understanding what did the good old bishop Newman mean by ‘to be deep in history …’?

 

[MichaelP3]

You have indeed been digging. Thank you.

Something that I thought about but had to look it up again. It’s on the council of Orange
Please see monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html

Its a Council of the early church that easily have a very different interpretation in the Catechism today and I can’t see a Catholic explaining it as stated in the council.

And interestingly it is councils like this used by Protestants as an argument. I can’t find a problem with the canon’s stated compared to my Protestant beliefs today. To me the stated canon’s are the reason the Reformation started. How can one say the Church who affirmed that council is the Catholic Church of today?

I came to my personal conclusion that the Reformation started not because Protestants just didn’t like everything and changed it. They said “wait a minute, let’s relax and go back to the beginning”

 

[MichaelP3]

I have a friend who told me that even though we put it writing, he did not believe that Jesus was crucified, buried and rose again. Then it was just his word against mine.

btw, in your understanding what did the good old bishop Newman mean by ‘to be deep in history …’?

Hi again.

On the Peter part again. I would say there is no proof he was in Rome thus it “may” be true. Not it “is” true. But being the cornerstone of Catholic faith it is an important topic. When I did research into when writings started to elevate Rome? Not early on but much later. Taking on History again, the Church was unified under the Roman Empire. But then the city of Rome fell and a Power vacuum was created. Rome could do as Rome pleased and then first did these writings appear. As the Bishop of Rome was no longer a subject of the Emperor like the 4 other sees. Rome could change dramatically without resistance. And after the gift of Peppin and his support, Rome could rise in Power as the creator of Emperors with Charlemagne. And first even after this, Mat 16:18 became prominent. Rome was first elevated for just being Rome in the Roman Empire. And when this wasn’t enough, and the church was heading for the great schism, they needed more authority. And they had to justify it somehow. Obviously I can remember all the dates so any questions further I can look up and answer.

Personally I think this can be another debate under another topic as that focuses on faith and philosophical reasoning and so on. And hey, we agree on that part.

On Newman, well I haven’t read those parts by him in the thread and plan on doing so soon. But from a glance it looks very much that he believes knowing the History of Christianity one will see Catholicism is the truth. Maybe that’s how he converted but I am confused that he could even apply it to himself. And would just like to know if there are similar people around here as Newman isn’t around to be asked.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi again.

On the Peter part again. I would say there is no proof he was in Rome thus it “may” be true. Not it “is” true. But being the cornerstone of Catholic faith it is an important topic. When I did research into when writings started to elevate Rome? Not early on but much later. Taking on History again, the Church was unified under the Roman Empire. But then the city of Rome fell and a Power vacuum was created. Rome could do as Rome pleased and then first did these writings appear. As the Bishop of Rome was no longer a subject of the Emperor like the 4 other sees. Rome could change dramatically without resistance. And after the gift of Peppin and his support, Rome could rise in Power as the creator of Emperors with Charlemagne. And first even after this, Mat 16:18 became prominent. Rome was first elevated for just being Rome in the Roman Empire. And when this wasn’t enough, and the church was heading for the great schism, they needed more authority. And they had to justify it somehow. Obviously I can remember all the dates so any questions further I can look up and answer.

Personally I think this can be another debate under another topic as that focuses on faith and philosophical reasoning and so on. And hey, we agree on that part.

On Newman, well I haven’t read those parts by him in the thread and plan on doing so soon. But from a glance it looks very much that he believes knowing the History of Christianity one will see Catholicism is the truth. Maybe that’s how he converted but I am confused that he could even apply it to himself. And would just like to know if there are similar people around here as Newman isn’t around to be asked.

I hope I do not waste too much of your time. I am also learning on this subject. Maybe those who are more of a scholar will give you the answer you want to seek or agree/refute you.

Thanks for the information anyway.

Take your time then on reading about Newman. I think it is good you know what he was actually saying so that you can be sure what your points of references are. Sometimes we can just object to something that we think rather than the actual subject matter.

Anyway, I often heard that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine. On the other hand, we are told that Peter was executed by the Romans. His remains was interned and buried underneath the present Bascillica, but you would not believe that, would you?

God bless.

 

[heart4home]

Well first one that always comes to mind is absolutely no proof that Peter ever even was in Rome. Now I do know all the theories about Babylon and so on but they are all still theories. No person will be awarded a PhD in History by using theories.

Secondly I came to notice there is a big difference to what I consider the Early Church and the Catholic Church today. For instance the Palagian Heresy. The council of Carthage that denounced him after after the Bishop of Rome even affirmed it. But the interesting part is how they denounced it at the council. Stating the following:

1.Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2.New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3.Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4.The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God’s commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5.Without God’s grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6.Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7.The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespasses”, not only to others, but also to themselves.
8.The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.[12]

The points in bold to me seem like the very essence of the Reformation.

And also St Augustine’s writings on Mat 16:18. It is the one father who had more to say about that verse than any other father and he never defined it as Rome do now.

Just 3 points but it can go a lot further.

And My thread started with history. From that perspective. Not beliefs like apostolic succession and therefore its true because Rome said so.

Regards

What do you think point number 5 means?

Do you believe that a non-believer can not do good works?

 

[MichaelP3]

I hope I do not waste too much of your time. I am also learning on this subject. Maybe those who are more of a scholar will give you the answer you want to seek or agree/refute you.

Thanks for the information anyway.

Take your time then on reading about Newman. I think it is good you know what he was actually saying so that you can be sure what your points of references are. Sometimes we can just object to something that we think rather than the actual subject matter.

Anyway, I often heard that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine. On the other hand, we are told that Peter was executed by the Romans. His remains was interned and buried underneath the present Bascillica, but you would not believe that, would you?

God bless.

I would not say it was started in the 4th century as we still had the 5 sees working together under the Authority of the Emperor. He appointed and dismissed Bishops at his own pleasure. I’d rather say it started after this Authority above the Roman see disappeared. That’s the time when Catholicism followed its own path and East and West started to drift apart until finally in the great Schism.

What I was getting to in the previous statement is that I wanted to establish the earliest time the Primacy of Peter was believed. As Rome’s Primacy is based on Peter and Peter’s Primacy is based on Mat 16:18. So let us say for an instance I believe Mat 16:18 that way one would still need to place Peter in Rome for it to be relevant to Catholicism. Otherwise why not Antioch which according to beliefs he also found. Getting to my point, I’m saying it may be possible but it can not be a definite. Catholicism claims to have been created by Jesus at Pentecost. If this is true and the very Primacy of Catholicism is vested in Peter, from that very moment Peter was Supreme Primate? And by believing the first church is the Catholic church today, this belief must have been important? No writing confirms this belief in the early church. No writing early on placed any Primacy in Peter or later Rome. If this is the very foundation which without the entire Catholic Church’s idea that Rome or the Pope is important, why is nothing written?

So back to your question to if I don’t believe it, I can say it is possible as nothing denies it but nothing except Rome saying so confirms it either. Being something so important and only silence on it, I struggle to believe it was that important to any early Church father or even the Apostles.

 

[MichaelP3]

What do you think point number 5 means?

Do you believe that a non-believer can not do good works?

Good day

Please know I took note of your question. I am just afraid this thread will turn into Theological and faith conversations and turn away from my objective on this specific thread.

I can just say look into the canon’s of all the early councils and see they explain things a lot different then the Catechism today.