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.
Outstanding thread Michael. Looking forward to following along. Hopefully more will participate.

In His Grace

P.S. I did read Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” a couple of years ago (twice actually). Your quote “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” in the OP comes from the introduction to this book. Here is the book…

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
Feel Free to participate. Would be cool to have a Lutheran here.
 
I haven’t looked back but if I am not mistaken you first posted the Apostles Creed. The Apostles’ Creed is not considered authoritative in the East, nor is it formed by an Ecumenical Council. The Creed was only used by the Roman Church, and is formed from the Roman baptismal formula.

See this from the Center for Reformed Theology
reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed_orr.html:

This is an assertion but yet to be proven. Each protestant church chooses a different point to start from where they see “the cores” and what the “first church” practiced. How can all be right?
So when some of the Anglicans profess the Catholic belief in praying for their dead, and venerate saints, are they just obeying Rome or do they actually believe the early church did this? Between the Anglicans that say the episcopate is intrinsic to Succession and the Lutherans that say the presbyterate is sufficient - which is more ‘early church’?

Why is not calling your church “a church” disrespectful? My understanding of Church is that it follows certain definitions, some of which your church does not consider a “core” and “essential” - therefore out of respect for your beliefs and mine, I used a different word. However, since it offends you that I do not inherently hold your views without discussion, I will go ahead and do so.
Hi my friend
I wonder if we are ever on the same page.

Do you think I care about authority like you understand it. The Francis says today “Jesus is God” and I say I agree, does that make me Catholic?? Just like I like Pizza, doesn’t make me Italian.
To the point, are we gonna have a discussion about this. The apostles Creed was established. It doesn’t contradict anything, affirmed everything Biblical. I don’t see the problem anymore on this subject. If you have one, point it out very clearly please.

This is an assertion but yet to be proven. Each protestant church chooses a different point to start from where they see “the cores” and what the “first church” practiced. How can all be right?
So when some of the Anglicans profess the Catholic belief in praying for their dead, and venerate saints, are they just obeying Rome or do they actually believe the early church did this? Between the Anglicans that say the episcopate is intrinsic to Succession and the Lutherans that say the presbyterate is sufficient - which is more ‘early church’?

This is an assertion but yet to be proven. Each protestant church chooses a different point to start from where they see “the cores” and what the “first church” practiced. How can all be right?
So when some of the Anglicans profess the Catholic belief in praying for their dead, and venerate saints, are they just obeying Rome or do they actually believe the early church did this? Between the Anglicans that say the episcopate is intrinsic to Succession and the Lutherans that say the presbyterate is sufficient - which is more ‘early church’?

I’m not so sure. Don’t they all start from Christ? And that brings me to saying though it seems like all just assume (and most ignore my posts), What makes the Catholic CHURCH the first Church?

Why is not calling your church “a church” disrespectful? My understanding of Church is that it follows certain definitions, some of which your church does not consider a “core” and “essential” - therefore out of respect for your beliefs and mine, I used a different word. However, since it offends you that I do not inherently hold your views without discussion, I will go ahead and do so.

This is just a sad response my friend. My you please reconsider and look into that. It seems like you need some work. I would also like to talk to you like you actually care what I say. Else no point in it. And we could go on with our lives separately.

Regards
Michael
 
Unfortunately that leaves me outside…I have many friends in Catholic circles but they have never told me this, we seem to find common ground in our relationships with Jesus. Maybe they are just pretending? My faith is secure and I am not distressed because I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I’ve committed, unto Him against that day!

Gotta go golfing!
Couldn’t agree more!
 
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.
Hi Mike,

As I recall from elementary schooling , that history is written thru the lens of the writer, and even understood thru the lens of the distant reader. Also, if we differ on interpreting certain scripture before us, would we not also differ on interpreting certain things written by the earlist forefathers ? I think so, as CAF postings would attest.

It is in the eyes of the beholder, for that which melts wax also hardens clay. So one just following Newman, CS Lewis would pen, “the unhistorical, without knowing it, are usually ensalved to a fairly recent past”. So how is it one studies history and becomes Catholic, and another one does also but becomes “Protestant” ?

Good question, and thank you.

Blessings
 
Here’s an explanation from Michelle Arnold.

**Question: **John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” If that is the case, why are there so many Protestant church historians, even patristics scholars, who never join the Catholic Church?

Answer:

Newman’s maxim is not intended to be a “rule” that those Protestants versed in Church history “must” enter the Catholic Church. It is a general observation that Church history argues against Protestantism and that those Protestants who study history deeply many times realize that the Catholic Church is the true Church.

Ultimately, belief in the truth of Catholicism is a gift of faith given by God that must be accepted and acted upon by the recipient in order for the recipient to become Catholic. With Protestant historians, it may be that some, for whatever reason of divine Providence, were not given that gift; or that those who were given that gift did not accept it or act upon it for some reason. We must commend such people to God’s mercy, trusting that if these individuals follow him to the best of their ability according to the light of truth that they have, it may be possible for them to achieve salvation (cf. Lumen Gentium, 16).

here
 
Sure. My wife is Roman Catholic and I am Protestant. The Church is all believers.🙂

In His Grace
Hi there

How did this work out for you? I mean, I met my fiancee when she was very Catholic. I honestly feel I didn’t try to change her mind. (Although I could have led her to questions she never even thought about, which wasn’t my intention). Well she is very smart and just did her own thing. I was even willing (and still even am) to marry under the Roman Church, but she insists the same Reverend who baptised me and Confirmed me, should marry us. And the marriage is actually in less then 2 months.

Did you marry under the Catholic Church? I mean love is love in the end?

Regards
Michael
 
Unfortunately that leaves me outside…I have many friends in Catholic circles but they have never told me this, we seem to find common ground in our relationships with Jesus. Maybe they are just pretending? My faith is secure and I am not distressed because I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I’ve committed, unto Him against that day!

Gotta go golfing!
have fun golfing. I don’t swe why having commonality with your friends should be surprising. It’s likely your church borrowed one or many aspects of religious practice from Catholicism, and that your inherent beliefs ingrained in you are mostly Catholic. It’s the rest of the man made differences that I am mentioning, that either your friends find impolite to mention or find it leads to ill feeling to speak aloud. Or maybe they just aren’t very well versed in their faith.
 
Hi there

How did this work out for you? I mean, I met my fiancee when she was very Catholic. I honestly feel I didn’t try to change her mind. (Although I could have led her to questions she never even thought about, which wasn’t my intention). Well she is very smart and just did her own thing. I was even willing (and still even am) to marry under the Roman Church, but she insists the same Reverend who baptised me and Confirmed me, should marry us. And the marriage is actually in less then 2 months.

Did you marry under the Catholic Church? I mean love is love in the end?

Regards
Michael
Catholics are allowed to marry outside the Church for sufficient reasons, as long as the proper dispensation is given by the bishop, it’s just as valid. Maybe her priest simply said it would be easier on you as a couple since you are so strong in your belief
 
Catholics are allowed to marry outside the Church for sufficient reasons, as long as the proper dispensation is given by the bishop, it’s just as valid. Maybe her priest simply said it would be easier on you as a couple since you are so strong in your belief
You should understand having the “problem” I had, you are not telling me something new. If I said I studied “everything” in detail, why are you still stating these basic things? Maybe it’s new to you, but you have come to converse with a Protestant who checked everything. I just merely asked a question to a fellow Protestant.

And btw, she didn’t even have a talk with her Bishop or Priest about this. We even have a family friend priest attending. 🙂
 
You should understand having the “problem” I had, you are not telling me something new. If I said I studied “everything” in detail, why are you still stating these basic things? Maybe it’s new to you, but you have come to converse with a Protestant who checked everything. I just merely asked a question to a fellow Protestant.

And btw, she didn’t even have a talk with her Bishop or Priest about this. We even have a family friend priest attending. 🙂
You have a ‘me against the world’ attitude about a response that many that don’t know may be interested in reading. Just because you claim to known everything doesn’t mean other people reading are as wise. Besides, if your priest friend is attending, he probably did the paperwork on your behalf without taking to anyone.
 
You have a ‘me against the world’ attitude about a response that many that don’t know may be interested in reading. Just because you claim to known everything doesn’t mean other people reading are as wise. Besides, if your priest friend is attending, he probably did the paperwork on your behalf without taking to anyone.
This is a very bold response. First of all, I never really saw our conversation as fruitful given obvious past occurrences. I would never claim to know everything. But responding with what I thought to be pretty basic, I don’t know. Maybe other don’t know this, but then address it in general, sorry otherwise, it seemed like a response to me, considering using my quote:shrug:.

Honestly I don’t even know why he is attending. But I’d like to believe it’s to wish us all the happiness forward. 🙂
 
Do you think I care about authority like you understand it. The Francis says today “Jesus is God” and I say I agree, does that make me Catholic?? Just like I like Pizza, doesn’t make me Italian.
Clearly you are not Catholic or Italian, however, you can’t claim that you invented the word pizza simply because you like to eat it. Which seems to be what is happening here. You like the Bible, agree with the Creed, and say Jesus is God, therefore all of those are yours and not from the earliest body that created, maintained and passed that on.
To the point, are we gonna have a discussion about this. The apostles Creed was established. It doesn’t contradict anything, affirmed everything Biblical. I don’t see the problem anymore on this subject. If you have one, point it out very clearly please.
Established by whom and why? What deeper truths do those words expand?
I’m not so sure. Don’t they all start from Christ?
clearly not. How many faiths did Christ start?
And that brings me to saying though it seems like all just assume (and most ignore my posts), What makes the Catholic CHURCH the first Church?
the assertion is this. In the beginning of Christianity, only one Communion of Orthodox believers existed. The Apostles went all over the world preaching the Good News. They laid hands on their successors. They did not fall out of union with one another or claim independence. Even St. Paul, not one of the original 12, met with Peter and the Apostles and was prayed on by them and blessed to continue his ministry. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East can make a claim to the same thing, to be the earliest Church Catholic. These all mainly believe similarly to Catholicism about most doctrine. Only the Latin Church developed in the West. All others came much much later than them, changed one or another doctrine from whence they came, according to their leaders personal take on the Bible and here we are. How can each competing disagreeing church be of Christ, is Christ schizophrenic?
This is just a sad response my friend. My you please reconsider and look into that. It seems like you need some work. I would also like to talk to you like you actually care what I say. Else no point in it. And we could go on with our lives separately.
Regards
Michael
Schism and heterodoxy is very sad and very serious. I care what you have to say but you seem to have many assertions with apriori beliefs that haven’t been discussed or agreed upon. For example the word ‘church’ - we seem to disagree on when it is appropriate to use. Instead of complaining of my lack of use toward you, even after my clear definition of why your church lacks that, you insist I rethink. Yet you haven’t at all defined what you mean by that term, but expect me to accept it as you deem so.
 
MichaelP3, SyroMalankara, and Wannano,

I’m not looking to “butt in” to your conversation, and admittedly haven’t read every word of it. (Although I think I have some idea of how it has gone, inasmuch as I have my own conversational history with SyroMalankara). But I am curious whether this conversation has led any of you to change any of your views?
 
Hi there

How did this work out for you? I mean, I met my fiancee when she was very Catholic. I honestly feel I didn’t try to change her mind. (Although I could have led her to questions she never even thought about, which wasn’t my intention). Well she is very smart and just did her own thing. I was even willing (and still even am) to marry under the Roman Church, but she insists the same Reverend who baptised me and Confirmed me, should marry us. And the marriage is actually in less then 2 months.

Did you marry under the Catholic Church? I mean love is love in the end?

Regards
Michael
Hi Michael,

Congrats on your upcoming marriage. My wife and I have been married for over eight years. I have been going to Mass with her for over eight years. I considered converting to Catholicism, a few years spent reading lots of books written by Catholics, EWTN, scripture and prayer of coarse. I completed all but the last three weeks of RCIA a couple of years ago before dropping out. I remain Protestant and most likely always will. My wife and I were married in a Lutheran Church. On matters of salvation her beliefs are more Protestant then Catholic. She refuses to go anywhere but the Catholic Church and I desire to worship God with the wife I love so I go to Mass with her. This is probably a cultural thing for her in part and for her worshiping God is all about, centered around Mass. I have to admit, Catholic Mass is a most beautiful form of worshiping the Creator.
I mean love is love in the end?
Yes

God bless you.

In His Grace

P.S. For some folks with certain personality types like mine internet forums can become seriously addictive and harmful. I spend very little time here but I do follow along with a few of the threads at CAF everyday, mostly as a nonparticipant.
 
MichaelP3, SyroMalankara, and Wannano,

I’m not looking to “butt in” to your conversation, and admittedly haven’t read every word of it. (Although I think I have some idea of how it has gone, inasmuch as I have my own conversational history with SyroMalankara). But I am curious whether this conversation has led any of you to change any of your views?
Well, I guess since it offends some people when I use a traditional definition of Church as its defined, I may start using it in the popular sense so that the reader isnt just offended immediately and turned off. I guess my hardidentity views cause offense by responding with the unexpected view. Best to start looking elsewhere or maybe a different area.
 
MichaelP3, SyroMalankara, and Wannano,

I’m not looking to “butt in” to your conversation, and admittedly haven’t read every word of it. (Although I think I have some idea of how it has gone, inasmuch as I have my own conversational history with SyroMalankara). But I am curious whether this conversation has led any of you to change any of your views?
I just spent an hour writing a reply and then lost it when trying to submit it. So I am accepting that maybe it wasn’t supposed to be given!

I will condense it to say that I have not changed any of my views but that my views are changing.
 
Well, I guess since it offends some people when I use a traditional definition of Church as its defined, I may start using it in the popular sense so that the reader isnt just offended immediately and turned off. I guess my hardidentity views cause offense by responding with the unexpected view. Best to start looking elsewhere or maybe a different area.
I find when I am offending others the first place I need to look is inward. Peace Syro.
 
MichaelP3, SyroMalankara, and Wannano,

I’m not looking to “butt in” to your conversation, and admittedly haven’t read every word of it. (Although I think I have some idea of how it has gone, inasmuch as I have my own conversational history with SyroMalankara). But I am curious whether this conversation has led any of you to change any of your views?
I have learned a lot but I can honestly say nothing (If i did I can’t remember) from SyroMalankara. What I did learn is a better understanding of his personal thinking. And that is maybe good as it is a reason I am here.

Although I find him to get very “different” than other posters. This leads to his correspondence becoming fruitless and shrinking to a exchange of a simple “Well you are wrong, that’s just how it is” (Sometimes in a very tactfully or even direct sense) that I would like to avoid.

But yea, in the end my view isn’t changing. I had thousands of hours researching debates, arguments and counter arguments. A few posts won’t do it.
 
Well, I guess since it offends some people when I use a traditional definition of Church as its defined, I may start using it in the popular sense so that the reader isnt just offended immediately and turned off. I guess my hardidentity views cause offense by responding with the unexpected view. Best to start looking elsewhere or maybe a different area.
If you mean this sincerely and I hope you do. Maybe just listen for a second. Let us say I was actually wondering and looking into Catholicism with a possibility of conversion, responds like that (and many of the others) could not only turn me totally in the different direction, but it can make me very Anti-Catholic even. (I expected various such arguments and can in some way understand where it comes from. But I know this is not all Catholics) And I think Catholics and Protestants would agree thats even worse than the current situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top