Why don't Protestants learn Catholic Church history?

[Hatikvah]

I myself, as is visible, am a Protestant; but I’m young, and I’m learning a little Church history at a time here.

But, I’m not reluctant to admit that Protestantism, and thus the Restorationist movements, all come from our Catholic predecessors (which is obvious with any amount of Church history!)

So why don’t Protestants learn more Catholic Church history? The history of the Church is really just the history of Western Christianity.

 

[josephback]

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." -John Cardinal Newman

I personally think(as someone raised Evangelical) that we aren’t really encouraged to question the environment we’re born into. It doesn’t matter what religion one is, the Matrix just is. In addition, learning about church history pre-1517 would make people question the truth and historical aspects of Evangelicalism, and nobody likes empty church buildings. But I may be writing from a bitter and disillusioned state of mind.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, I agree. Learning even the history of Protestantism takes one straight back to the Reformation - Reformation of what? The Roman Catholic Church. Why? One has no choice in the study of history of the schism to work back on that path to the original Church of the Apostles (including the schism with the Eastern Orthodox as well).

I read a great comment the other day by a Evangelical convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. “I think all Protestants are Orthodox without knowing it.” Love it. How true. The RCC could and does say the same thing.

In order to keep the modern Protestant Evangelical identity intact, only so much of the above can be explored, understood. It is about survival. But in most cases I think, practically speaking anyway, it is simple every day ignorance, lack of information. Not to mention misinformation actively being spread/learned about the RCC also. This is ironically a darker part of the Protestant history. (not saying there was not some justification for these attitudes…in history)

 

[Avila123]

Maybe it is the same reasons as quite a few of us Catholics don’t learn our own history. Some people are not interested in the past, others just latch onto what they are comfortable with, some simply believe whatever they are told without checking the facts or exploring further.

 

[esieffe]

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." -John Cardinal Newman

I personally think(as someone raised Evangelical) that we aren’t really encouraged to question the environment we’re born into. It doesn’t matter what religion one is, the Matrix just is. In addition, learning about church history pre-1517 would make people question the truth and historical aspects of Evangelicalism, and nobody likes empty church buildings. But I may be writing from a bitter and disillusioned state of mind.

I think Cardinal Newman’s quote hits the nail on the head.

Perhaps the fact that my father was an Episcopal Priest, left the door open for me to “discover” the Catholic Church. Being an Episcopalian worked for me up through my teenage years and then it began to ring like a cracked bell.

The protestant church does work for many people, and this is a good thing obviously. It just did not for me, for many reasons. What great thing we could achieve if \protestants DID study the Catholic Church! Not to gain converts as much as to gain understanding, and work together in one great effort to serve Christ, and reshape the world.

 

[jmcrae]

I myself, as is visible, am a Protestant; but I’m young, and I’m learning a little Church history at a time here.

But, I’m not reluctant to admit that Protestantism, and thus the Restorationist movements, all come from our Catholic predecessors (which is obvious with any amount of Church history!)

So why don’t Protestants learn more Catholic Church history? The history of the Church is really just the history of Western Christianity.

Because then they would be confronted with the fact that the Church established by Jesus Christ was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with Peter as its first Chief Shepherd in a long line of Chief Shepherds stretching in an unbroken line until the Pope who sits in Peter’s chair today.

They would have to come up with an explanation of why the Church established by Jesus Christ isn’t good enough for them.

 

[PJM]

I myself, as is visible, am a Protestant; but I’m young, and I’m learning a little Church history at a time here.

But, I’m not reluctant to admit that Protestantism, and thus the Restorationist movements, all come from our Catholic predecessors (which is obvious with any amount of Church history!)

So why don’t Protestants learn more Catholic Church history? The history of the Church is really just the history of Western Christianity.

I suspect there are several reason’s

1 Many seek evidence of there beliefs; NOT evidence of the truth faith instituted by Jesus

2 Others take was is taught to them without question its provable veracity

1. Some; [like some Catholics] just don’t make the effort
2. Failure to ask themselves questions; such as:

WHERE IN THE BIBLE: even one time is there evidence of GOD: Yahweh or Jesus ever being “OK” with, tolerating, permitting, excusing, or allowing ANY other [all of which by necessity MUST & do actaullly compete with His Obe true set of Faith beliefs.

Or, what is the provable reason for the reformation; which has to compete with the then 1,500 year old Catholic Church? … Mt 16:18-19; John 17: 17-20; Mt 28:19-20 & 2nd Tim 3:16-17, that Jesus founded, desired and protects [now 2,000 years old]

These passages seemingly have to be denied, ignored, overlooked or incorrectly understood OR

The Bible is WRONG:shrug:

Of Jesus Lied

Great question, Thanks,

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[steido01]

Speak for yourself, not for “Protestantism” (whatever that is).

Lutherans are very well aware of church history, both acknowledging the Christians who have gone before us and appealing to the fathers to strengthen our theological claims (just read how many times our Confessions refer to the fathers!).

There is nothing to “restore,” since the true church has never been lost. The Gospel exists within Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicsnism, and wherever else the Word is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. Reform? Sure. Restore? Don’t be silly. Take Luther’s own words from his sermons on John:

[W]e concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them…
Now I find this church in the papacy too
…]
Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy.
…]
ome of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.
…]
[W]e want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.

​

Amen!

 

[FollowChrist34]

Speak for yourself, not for “Protestantism” (whatever that is).

Lutherans are very well aware of church history, both acknowledging the Christians who have gone before us and appealing to the fathers to strengthen our theological claims (just read how many times our Confessions refer to the fathers!).

There is nothing to “restore,” since the true church has never been lost. The Gospel exists within Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicsnism, and wherever else the Word is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. Reform? Sure. Restore? Don’t be silly. Take Luther’s own words from his sermons on John:

​

Amen!

Nailed it.

:extrahappy:

(I for my part took great care to add ‘Evangelical’ in my post comments for what it is worth, by which I mean Protestants who don’t have the Eucharist as a Sacrament. I do agree with above.)

 

[FractalFire]

I myself, as is visible, am a Protestant; but I’m young, and I’m learning a little Church history at a time here.

But, I’m not reluctant to admit that Protestantism, and thus the Restorationist movements, all come from our Catholic predecessors (which is obvious with any amount of Church history!)

So why don’t Protestants learn more Catholic Church history? The history of the Church is really just the history of Western Christianity.

I suppose it’s for the same reason some protestants know very little about *Protestant *history – there is a lot of focus on the teachings in the Bible, but sadly, very little focus on church history. This is at least somewhat understandable – the teachings of God are of primary focus, after all – but still, to ignore so much of our history comes at a great loss. Naturally, in seminaries and other such places you will find far more teaching about these eras – Aquinas, Augustine, etc. will all get a mention. Never-the-less, even in theological school, much must be skimmed over. We must remember that the Christian religion is approaching 2 millennia old and its history is hence very long. For this reason, many of the less critical or less controversial topics today cannot be given a very in-depth study. (When was the last time you learned about an event in church history that happened 100 or 200 years ago? We also skip a lot of history between the reformation and now, you know.)

I think another reason some tend to skip over certain sections of history might be shame about some of the abuses that occurred at those time. When I read about the crusades, corrupt politicians buying their way into church offices, and other sins, it admittedly makes me very reluctant to learn more about the church during that time period. It’s not a very good reason, certainly – for every sinner, I suspect there were at least as many faithful Christians and saints – but it is, I think, an understandable reluctance at least. Unfortunately, this means a lot of church history gets unfairly lumped together, the good with the bad, and avoided, to our detriment.

There are some here who would say that the failure of some Protestants to learn history is because, if they were to learn about certain events, they would have to become Catholic – presumably because they would realize that the church they were rebelling against was descended from the original church founded by the apostles. This is an odd accusation, because the reformers themselves never denied this. Israel was founded upon King David, but not all David’s descendants were just, the reformers would reply. They claimed, rather, that over time the church had become corrupted by sin and greed, itself rebelling against God in its excess. They thus argued that it needed to be reformed – an accusation the Catholic church later implicitly accepted when it cleansed itself of corruption during the counter-reformation (too little, too late, alas).

So I must politely counter – if a Catholic were to learn about the corruption that plagued the church during the centuries before the reformation, he would, perhaps not cease to be Catholic, but certainly cease to use that John Newman quote! But that is just my view of the history, based in part on what I have learned and read. If you want to know yourself, read the history and get your own impression of events.

So by all means, read church history – Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and Early – you will doubtless learn something worth knowing! May God draw you closer to Him through your studies.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I myself, as is visible, am a Protestant; but I’m young, and I’m learning a little Church history at a time here.

But, I’m not reluctant to admit that Protestantism, and thus the Restorationist movements, all come from our Catholic predecessors (which is obvious with any amount of Church history!)

So why don’t Protestants learn more Catholic Church history? The history of the Church is really just the history of Western Christianity.

I think the problem is people in general, whether Catholic or Protestant, have no interest in learning ANY history. Which is why our country is in the mess it currently in.

 

[FractalFire]

I think the problem is people in general, whether Catholic or Protestant, have no interest in learning ANY history. Which is why our country is in the mess it currently in.

True. American’s grasp of their own history is awful and I suspect the same is true in other countries. You’d think the people of the information age would be more - well - informed.

 

[e_c]

The same reason 10% of recent college graduates say Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

I think another reason some tend to skip over certain sections of history might be shame about some of the abuses that occurred at those time. When I read about the crusades, corrupt politicians buying their way into church offices, and other sins, it admittedly makes me very reluctant to learn more about the church during that time period. It’s not a very good reason, certainly – for every sinner, I suspect there were at least as many faithful Christians and saints – but it is, I think, an understandable reluctance at least. Unfortunately, this means a lot of church history gets unfairly lumped together, the good with the bad, and avoided, to our detriment.

There are some here who would say that the failure of some Protestants to learn history is because, if they were to learn about certain events, they would have to become Catholic – presumably because they would realize that the church they were rebelling against was descended from the original church founded by the apostles. This is an odd accusation, because the reformers themselves never denied this. Israel was founded upon King David, but not all David’s descendants were just, the reformers would reply. They claimed, rather, that over time the church had become corrupted by sin and greed, itself rebelling against God in its excess. They thus argued that it needed to be reformed – an accusation the Catholic church later implicitly accepted when it cleansed itself of corruption during the counter-reformation (too little, too late, alas).

So I must politely counter – if a Catholic were to learn about the corruption that plagued the church during the centuries before the reformation, he would, perhaps not cease to be Catholic, but certainly cease to use that John Newman quote! But that is just my view of the history, based in part on what I have learned and read. If you want to know yourself, read the history and get your own impression of events.

THIS is why it is important to learn the lesson of Judas. The study of Church history starts with the Twelve… it is more or less just the same story over and over afterward, in terms of internal affairs. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

 

[FractalFire]

THIS is why it is important to learn the lesson of Judas. The study of Church history starts with the Twelve… it is more or less just the same story over and over afterward, in terms of internal affairs. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Why, the entire history of the world is basically God’s people rebelling against him every two decades.

Note: I should also correct myself. Israel’s (good) *monarchy *was primarily founded on David (we’ll ignore Saul for the moment), not Israel itself (which was arguably founded through Jacob, who was renamed Israel). Ooops. Clearly I need to learn more ancient Biblical History.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I admit to being a history buff, but as for the Church - how can anyone seriously believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and not learn everything they can about his Church on earth, not want to get it right.

And I agree this study should be objective - every side of the story (objective, responsible, mainstream sources, please): Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox

Also include post Vatican II - the RCC as it stands today, not just 500 years ago and then stop.

 

[Neofight]

I myself, as is visible, am a Protestant; but I’m young, and I’m learning a little Church history at a time here.

But, I’m not reluctant to admit that Protestantism, and thus the Restorationist movements, all come from our Catholic predecessors (which is obvious with any amount of Church history!)

So why don’t Protestants learn more Catholic Church history? The history of the Church is really just the history of Western Christianity.

Maybe for the same reason more people from Minnesota don’t study Texas history?

 

[e_c]

Why, the entire history of the world is basically God’s people rebelling against him every two decades.

Right. And Israel remains chosen. The covenants are irrevocable. No matter how bad the people or leaders become… it does not depend on their holiness, but on God’s promises. So just because Pope John XII died in a woman’s bedroom does not mean the Church he led was any less the Mystical Body of Christ. For crying out loud, Peter had that incident in the courtyard, and within earshot of our Lord!

 

[SAVINGRACE]

When I was a Protestant I had a veil pulled over my eyes and ears. I never knew what happened between the time Apostles died and 2010. I don’t know I never asked.

In late 2007 a Protestant university student who was partying and having the time of my life had a direct encounter with Our Lady which stunned, shocked and changed my life forever. I spoke to people in my church and friends, everyone thought I was strange or losing my mind. Nobody had heard of “Mary” appearing to Protestants, “it must be an evil angel”. I started questioning what happened. Only my Catholic friend was not perturbed when I told her, she didn’t look surprised or rebuke me or explain it away. She advised me to speak to a Priest which I did. A few months later I was on my way to World Youth Day in Sydney still a Protestant and I there had a second encounter, a direct encounter with the Holy Spirit at the Papal Mass which left me in no doubt that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ started in the Upper Room. By the end of that trip I knew I would become Catholic.

You don’t have to know the history to have faith but it helps when you are asked questions about your faith and have to defend it. This is the journey I am on now, learning about the rich 2000 history of the church, the good, the bad and the ugly. The Popes, the Saints, the martyrs, the Crusaders etc.

It’s like learning the history of my family. The Church is a family.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Because then they would be confronted with the fact that the Church established by Jesus Christ was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with Peter as its first Chief Shepherd in a long line of Chief Shepherds stretching in an unbroken line until the Pope who sits in Peter’s chair today.

They would have to come up with an explanation of why the Church established by Jesus Christ isn’t good enough for them.

I think that is a line that Roman Catholics use; I don’t think it has much meaning for reformed Christians or other evangelicals. Christianity needed to be taken back to its Biblical roots and Jesus himself, they would say, in order to be true. I have heard many reasons why the Roman Church is no longer the Church of Jesus, but that is beside the point. I think most Protestants see little need to study the Catholic church before the Reformation.

 

[josephback]

The same reason 10% of recent college graduates say Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

Wait, is that a real stat? I’m not questioning your honesty just lamenting the state of higher education if that’s true.