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

[SyroMalankara]

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.

A couple things, first Catholics do not deny that much of the development of the Church was just that, a development. You can argue that the Pope today wears red shoes, did Peter wear red shoes? I don’t see in the Bible or in the 1st century where he does, then the current practice is pagan and unbiblical and therefore you justify being separated to it.
Secondly, the letters to later bishops of Rome. For example Pope St. Clement. In some Oriental Orthodox Bible’s, this letter is read as an epistle. Why was Clement consulted when the Apostle St. John was still alive exiled in Patmos?

 

[GKC]

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”

The Councils are not my sandbox, I dig in the political piles of history (which once had me well into Trent, admittedly). But it is an interesting question.

 

[GKC]

A couple things, first Catholics do not deny that much of the development of the Church was just that, a development. You can argue that the Pope today wears red shoes, did Peter wear red shoes? I don’t see in the Bible or in the 1st century where he does, then the current practice is pagan and unbiblical and therefore you justify being separated to it.
Secondly, the letters to later bishops of Rome. For example Pope St. Clement. In some Oriental Orthodox Bible’s, this letter is read as an epistle. Why was Clement consulted when the Apostle St. John was still alive exiled in Patmos?

And the source of the Newman maxim is, after all, AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

 

[MichaelP3]

A couple things, first Catholics do not deny that much of the development of the Church was just that, a development. You can argue that the Pope today wears red shoes, did Peter wear red shoes? I don’t see in the Bible or in the 1st century where he does, then the current practice is pagan and unbiblical and therefore you justify being separated to it.
Secondly, the letters to later bishops of Rome. For example Pope St. Clement. In some Oriental Orthodox Bible’s, this letter is read as an epistle. Why was Clement consulted when the Apostle St. John was still alive exiled in Patmos?

Forgive me for believing I am taken out of context here. With Clement we are still sitting with the very early church and Clement was a father just like all the others. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he even regarded himself as a Pope. And Clement didn’t write anything any sane Protestant will object to. So I struggle to understand that argument.

So you say it is developing Christian faith. This sound like a very convenient loophole. But that wasn’t my point and I am afraid we are going of topic with that. (And please lets keep the arguments sound, talking about the shoes is like saying Peter didn’t drive a car and Francis does so its wrong) To be able to develop faith, one needs the Authority. Or if not like Protestants believe (about themselves as well), you work with the Bible.
I am only asking, does history prove Rome has this authority saying they are the First church. This is my point, historically that is not the case.

 

[MichaelP3]

And the source of the Newman maxim is, after all, AN ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

I can’t agree this is so simple. Saying councils were just a development and they changed later on will mean we should take Vatican 1 and 2 as a temporary measure. It may change but let’s believe it for now.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I can’t agree this is so simple. Saying councils were just a development and they changed later on will mean we should take Vatican 1 and 2 as a temporary measure. It may change but let’s believe it for now.

I dont think you fully understand the concept of development. A change and organic development are actually polar opposites

 

[GKC]

I dont think you fully understand the concept of development. A change and organic development are actually polar opposites

Yep.

 

[MichaelP3]

I dont think you fully understand the concept of development. A change and organic development are actually polar opposites

No I don’t think we are on the same page. I can see now how people say numerous topics get discussed and they rarely end with the one started. My point is they changed. That is proved in history which I actually want to get to again please. But the loophole is used to say it developed. You don’t agree at Carthage on those parts and in today’s Catachism it is totally different and then call it development. But can we please stick to the history part?

 

[SyroMalankara]

No I don’t think we are on the same page. I can see now how people say numerous topics get discussed and they rarely end with the one started. My point is they changed. That is proved in history which I actually want to get to again please. But the loophole is used to say it developed. You don’t agree at Carthage on those parts and in today’s Catachism it is totally different and then call it development. But can we please stick to the history part?

I don’t see a difference. Besides, you stated that if you have an issue with authority, your only recourse is to read the Bible for yourself and figure it out. Which early church did or said to do that? Protestants claim the Catholic authority doesn’t exist and then proceed to “go back to the early church” that no protestant agrees with another protestant on fully… based on a self-proclaimed authority they haven’t proven they have

Let me also add, none of the Synods in Carthage has ever been regarded as an Ecumenical Council, so I don’t really see the point in applying the statements universally in this regard, when it was intended locally. Other than as an academic exercise .

 

[MichaelP3]

I don’t see a difference. Besides, you stated that if you have an issue with authority, your only recourse is to read the Bible for yourself and figure it out. Which early church did or said to do that? Protestants claim the Catholic authority doesn’t exist and then proceed to “go back to the early church” that no protestant agrees with another protestant on fully… based on a self-proclaimed authority they haven’t proven they have

Let me also add, none of the Synods in Carthage has ever been regarded as an Ecumenical Council, so I don’t really see the point in applying the statements universally in this regard, when it was intended locally. Other than as an academic exercise .

Okay. Where do I begin with this. Let’s even take sola scriptura out. Believing in the early church means believing in what the new testament says. And I wouldn’t say I have an issue with authority, I would just like to know where it comes from as it is not proven at all by history. Why do we have Orthodox and Catholic today? Doesn’t it all boil down to the Pope if we had to use one sentence? What I was getting to, If the First Church didn’t find Peter so important as Catholics today do, why is it nowhere? Or was it something that developed 100s of years after Peter died? And I’m still sticking to the history part, we can dicuss the different Protestants later. And what Authority do we claim?

Maybe look deeper into the councils. One was Carthage, it was the first on that subject. Orange which affirmed all of Carthage got papal sanction. Or was this also just a development. And just out of curiosity, do you disagree with Carthage?

 

[Peter_J]

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

Because they’re not as smart as Cardinal Newman.

No offense.

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”.

Kidding aside, what is intolerant isn’t always cut-and-dried. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if a Protestant said to me “to be deep in Scripture is to cease to be Catholic” – and I’m surprised that you, a Protestant, regard that as nonsense.

 

[Peter_J]

I couldn’t in good conscience convert and cross my fingers behind my back about some of these things.

If it makes you feel better, we recently installed Crossed Finger Detectors in my parish, so it wouldn’t have worked anyhow.

 

[theropod]

If it makes you feel better, we recently installed Crossed Finger Detectors in my parish, so it wouldn’t have worked anyhow.

Nice. Lightning insurance!

 

[SyroMalankara]

Okay. Where do I begin with this. Let’s even take sola scriptura out.

ok

Believing in the early church means believing in what the new testament says.

Well, I’d dispute that statement. Believing the NT requires an Early Church.

And I wouldn’t say I have an issue with authority, I would just like to know where it comes from as it is not proven at all by history.

You mean there were no Apostles, bishops (episkopos), priests (presbyteros), or deacons (diaconos)?

Why do we have Orthodox and Catholic today?

Irrelevant to your earlier questions, since both believe in the Church’s authority and that each possesses that authority. That is different than saying no authority exists.

Doesn’t it all boil down to the Pope if we had to use one sentence?

Overly simplistic.

What I was getting to, If the First Church didn’t find Peter so important as Catholics today do, why is it nowhere?

Is it nowhere? Because copious notes have been written by Catholics, non-Catholics, some Orthodox, many protestants and seculars that say otherwise. You just don’t like or agree with them.

Or was it something that developed 100s of years after Peter died?

What is the ‘it’ specifically?

And I’m still sticking to the history part, we can dicuss the different Protestants later. And what Authority do we claim?

To know how to read the Bible properly. To have leadership outside the existing ones. To be the ‘real early church’ according to yourself.

Maybe look deeper into the councils. One was Carthage, it was the first on that subject. Orange which affirmed all of Carthage got papal sanction. Or was this also just a development. And just out of curiosity, do you disagree with Carthage?

Carthage was in North Africa, there were 4 or 5 Synods there. Which specific one are you referencing and what specific teachings from there?

It seems you are compressing 2000 years of Catholic history into some tiny soundbyte, while at the same time putting off the ‘different protestant sects’ because it is much easier to criticize another group lobbing hundreds of unrelated, partially related, and somewhat misunderstood statements from the outside than to look where your sect came from, why and how.

 

[MichaelP3]

ok

Well, I’d dispute that statement. Believing the NT requires an Early Church.

You mean there were no Apostles, bishops (episkopos), priests (presbyteros), or deacons (diaconos)?

Irrelevant to your earlier questions, since both believe in the Church’s authority and that each possesses that authority. That is different than saying no authority exists.

Overly simplistic.

Is it nowhere? Because copious notes have been written by Catholics, non-Catholics, some Orthodox, many protestants and seculars that say otherwise. You just don’t like or agree with them.

What is the ‘it’ specifically?

To know how to read the Bible properly. To have leadership outside the existing ones. To be the ‘real early church’ according to yourself.

Carthage was in North Africa, there were 4 or 5 Synods there. Which specific one are you referencing and what specific teachings from there?

It seems you are compressing 2000 years of Catholic history into some tiny soundbyte, while at the same time putting off the ‘different protestant sects’ because it is much easier to criticize another group lobbing hundreds of unrelated, partially related, and somewhat misunderstood statements from the outside than to look where your sect came from, why and how.

I take offence of your usage of the word sect?

That’s a lot to take in. Maybe take one at a time.

Secondly, do you really think you can take me on when it comes to history? Just curious? I see numerous flaws already.

 

[JustaServant]

…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=941204&highlight=Timeline+catholic

 

[Reuben_J]

I take offence of your usage of the word sect?

That’s a lot to take in. Maybe take one at a time.

Secondly, do you really think you can take me on when it comes to history? Just curious? I see numerous flaws already.

Hi. Sorry but I think this reply to the post, which have addressed all your earlier points, is not sufficient. I notice you only mentioned about the word ‘sect’. Though valid, that is not the most important reply to that post. You can regard it simply just a counter reply. You have been asking about the Catholic Church, it was replied to you. Only then sect was mentioned.

The normal way to discuss here would be to address back what the poster has brought up in replying to you. Then if you want to, to explain whether you agree or do not agree to his assertion by giving your reason. For example, if you do not agree to the term ‘sect’, tell us why and then we can proceed from that. Sorry I am saying this, seeing you are new to the Forum. No offense meant.

You keep on saying ‘history’. That part has been answered which you disagreed. We will be talking pass each other if we do not agree on definition, you see?

I just want to offer a bit on the Peter part. I believe that Peter was in Rome, preaching there and finally laid to rest there. Died at the hand of his detractors, the Romans. What non-Catholics often missed, is the rich tradition of the Catholic Church, tradition that they said are made by men, rather than ones that were passed down from generations beginning with he apostles.

While not considered as Scriptures, some of the writing of the Early Church Fathers were still intact, kept and stored in the vault of the Vatican in Rome. One has to be a Catholic to really stand in awe at the massive evidence that it it like stepping back in a time capsule when one browses at all those writing and artifacts. Would you believe in those writings?

As for the early Church, you will be disappointed because you think it was not the same as what the Church today is. (For simplicity, Church with the big cap is usually meant the Catholic Church. It is just an usage thing ). No, they started small, not until when they were allowed to operate legally. That is why I think many non-Catholics think that it was actually Emperor Constantine who started the Catholic Church.

Big point there - granted he might have a hand in choosing Bishops. There is no evidence however that he decided doctrines.

So yes, the Pope wears red shoes today while Peter did a hide and seek with the Romans and was probably in rags. He was still the Pope though he was not called that, Pope being a much later development. The leadership of the apostles nevertheless did not just disappear after their death, there were successors. Imagine the guerrilla warfare before Mao Tze Tung took over the government in China. They already had authority even before that. You would not imagine that Chairman Mao would live in a big palace, which he did, once his government expanded.

I think you address those answers and only then you will get your discussion moving.

 

[Reuben_J]

What I was getting to in the previous statement is that I wanted to establish the earliest time the Primacy of Peter was believed.

I missed out this post.

At the Pentecost. It might not what it like today but that was when it started. The apostles worked together in groups; there was not much an institution, which was almost impossible then. They were hunted down and besides, there was the small numbers.

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.

I agree with you, it could be Antioch. They first preached there. But then it was not to be. Rome was the center of the earth then, and if the Christians needed to conquer the world, Rome was the obvious choice. So Peter moved on to Rome. We know that from the Church traditions and writings. Of course, and Paul too.

Catholicism claims to have been created by Jesus at Pentecost.

Yes, because that was when the Church officially began, more or less. And ‘Catholicism’ is that Church. She started from there.

If this is true and the very Primacy of Catholicism is vested in Peter, from that very moment Peter was Supreme Primate?

Yes. Most original churches that still stand today would acknowledge that. The only disagreement is the jurisdiction of that primacy.

And by believing the first church is the Catholic church today, this belief must have been important?

It is not just a belief. It was and is the same Church. The evidence is in its existence now and can be traced back all the way to Peter. Similarly other churches that were founded by the apostles – they could be traced all the way to their founders. No modern Christian churches can do that.

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?

Yes, there were. Check the Early Church Father writings. Considering it was already two thousand years, the reality of illiteracy and the difficulties in preserving those ancient documents, it is amazing we still maintain some of the remnants of them.

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.

There is definitely no silence there.

But I understand you. If you started with that as a starting point, you will probably end up not convinced. That would be our differences then.

God bless.

 

[Edmundus1581]

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.

That is very close to what Newman himself said. However, if history indicates that the church was thus, then it was not Protestant. You can read everything we know of the early church, and not find a trace of modern (ie. post 16C) Protestantism. While some have been able to find an odd quote or two from, say, Augustine, there is no trace of whole churches founded on and practicing Sola Scriptura.

That’s my take on it. It would be helpful if we had a better understanding of what Newman himself meant by “Protestantism”. IIRC from reading the Apologia he doesn’t define it, and just takes it as a given. So, he was of course referring to some common understanding amongst English churchmen of the 19th century of what Protestantism is.

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.

:yup:

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi. Sorry but I think this reply to the post, which have addressed all your earlier points, is not sufficient. I notice you only mentioned about the word ‘sect’. Though valid, that is not the most important reply to that post. You can regard it simply just a counter reply. You have been asking about the Catholic Church, it was replied to you. Only then sect was mentioned.

The normal way to discuss here would be to address back what the poster has brought up in replying to you. Then if you want to, to explain whether you agree or do not agree to his assertion by giving your reason. For example, if you do not agree to the term ‘sect’, tell us why and then we can proceed from that. Sorry I am saying this, seeing you are new to the Forum. No offense meant.

You keep on saying ‘history’. That part has been answered which you disagreed. We will be talking pass each other if we do not agree on definition, you see?

I just want to offer a bit on the Peter part. I believe that Peter was in Rome, preaching there and finally laid to rest there. Died at the hand of his detractors, the Romans. What non-Catholics often missed, is the rich tradition of the Catholic Church, tradition that they said are made by men, rather than ones that were passed down from generations beginning with he apostles.

While not considered as Scriptures, some of the writing of the Early Church Fathers were still intact, kept and stored in the vault of the Vatican in Rome. One has to be a Catholic to really stand in awe at the massive evidence that it it like stepping back in a time capsule when one browses at all those writing and artifacts. Would you believe in those writings?

As for the early Church, you will be disappointed because you think it was not the same as what the Church today is. (For simplicity, Church with the big cap is usually meant the Catholic Church. It is just an usage thing ). No, they started small, not until when they were allowed to operate legally. That is why I think many non-Catholics think that it was actually Emperor Constantine who started the Catholic Church.

Big point there - granted he might have a hand in choosing Bishops. There is no evidence however that he decided doctrines.

So yes, the Pope wears red shoes today while Peter did a hide and seek with the Romans and was probably in rags. He was still the Pope though he was not called that, Pope being a much later development. The leadership of the apostles nevertheless did not just disappear after their death, there were successors. Imagine the guerrilla warfare before Mao Tze Tung took over the government in China. They already had authority even before that. You would not imagine that Chairman Mao would live in a big palace, which he did, once his government expanded.

I think you address those answers and only then you will get your discussion moving.

In my defense it was past midnight here and I needed to sleep as I am working today.

But I would not say the final statement about sect is the least important part. Although I respect all your replies and would reply to them soon, I prefer not to have a discussion with SyroMalankara anymore as it started to become unfruitful and pointless. The last statement basically said all your opinions are inferior because whatever you believe is inferior. It’s not like either of us will convince the other, I’m just here for thoughts and understanding and I got that from SyroMalankara.