Why don't Protestants learn Catholic Church history?

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Hi z,

OK not bad. I would however challenge the underlined with a more accurate view of those outside the hospital. Vat 2 does a decent job of explaining that indeed others are healed outside the hospital. Vat even gives the how (Is it Lumen Gentia, Vat 2 ?) It most certainly is the Lord, but of course somehow still thru the hospital. Kind of like that the same Lord that built the hospital comes outside to also heal , giving credence to the hospital. Like if a famed doctor travels to heal someone, the hospital he is from is also lifted up, glorified. There is a unity to it all, according to the CC.

I liken it to this. And this deals with any christian, from any church, but who is not in fullness due to teaching or maturity,sin.

We are all on an ocean liner destination Paradise. The ship has many amenities of varying qualities. They best is available equally and freely to all. Yet some have settled for almost cargo quarters, and others in 2nd class rooms, and some in luxury suites. Some subsist on crackers and milk, others on hamburger and fries, while still others feast on steak and all sorts of fruits and vegetables and drinks.

I think that is the reality.

Blessings

I think our views are roughly similar. I am just reluctant to definitively state my view of whether any outside the Church will be saved. Maybe Vatican II stated it. I don’t know. The Orthodox tend to believe that at least some people outside of the Church will be saved, but tend to be reluctant to definitively teach as doctrine anything more than that it is possible. Maybe the Catholics take a different stance here.

One query I have is in regards to the portion of your post I underlined. Are you implying some sort of universal salvation?

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Well I wish I could leave it as amiably agreeable as you put it. I think I was trying to show respect for Writ relative to tradition, in that the CC has it also. One could read your above statement and think I support all Catholic scriptural support/interpretation for her doctrine. But maybe you were just pulling my leg, as i now laughingly further ponder it You got me.

lol! I didn’t mean to be funny! But I wasn’t implying you think ALL our doctrines are found in Scripture. But that you seem to respect we have our Scriptural references to support what we believe.

I know you don’t find evidence that the Magisterium has ultimate interpretation privilege. And you know I believe all members, despite rank, can be used by God to interpret Scripture. Yet, there is an aspect of “officially confirmed” interpretation by the Magisterium which I assent to.

 

[Wannano]

That is kind of you… no prob! I was defending Wannano’s sincere faith.

:thankyou:

 

[benhur]

I think our views are roughly similar. I am just reluctant to definitively state my view of whether any outside the Church will be saved. Maybe Vatican II stated it. I don’t know. The Orthodox tend to believe that at least some people outside of the Church will be saved, but tend to be reluctant to definitively teach as doctrine anything more than that it is possible. Maybe the Catholics take a different stance here.

One query I have is in regards to the portion of your post I underlined. Are you implying some sort of universal salvation?

Hi z,

Maybe I misunderstand you and what you mean by ‘‘Church" I am so used to the old saying that no one can be saved outside the church as in Catholic church, and that O’s consider themselves to be "Catholic’’ as do some P’s . So I was speaking of “other” Christians but in non-Catholic churches. I was not referring to non Christians who have followed their conscience and have been humbled by life and nature, and would become Christian, if they ever heard of such a thing. I think Lumen Gentia has an explanation for those special circumstances also. I am not implying universal salvation, just as I am not saying all who have not heard the gospel, or are able to respond to it (infants/children) go to hell.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

The early Christians did not have the Writ we have now either, and the Writ was formed by man too, so I don’t see any reason to consider it separate from tradition.

IIRC, “The Gift of Authority” speaks of Scripture, not as being above Tradition, but as *central *to Tradition – thus implying that it isn’t separate.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, what is written is certainly more black-and-white. I think that’s why the Church made the Scriptures a “canon” - i.e. “measuring stick”/“guideline” - to give us a compact tool to know the boundaries of the Faith. We have canons…and then we have THE canon.

youtu.be/PkCW4TkLBfo?t=16s

 

[benhur]

lol! I didn’t mean to be funny! But I wasn’t implying you think ALL our doctrines are found in Scripture. But that you seem to respect we have our Scriptural references to support what we believe.

Ok. We are on same page.

I know you don’t find evidence that the Magisterium has ultimate interpretation privilege. And you know I believe all members, despite rank, can be used by God to interpret Scripture. Yet, there is an aspect of “officially confirmed” interpretation by the Magisterium which I assent to.

I think it is like Peter and his answer to Christ , that He was the Christ. The Lord said the answer was divinely given. The understanding came from God. As Job says, “God gives the understanding to a man” specifically to a young friend of Job. Even Augustine says “He ( Jesus) teaches us.” But I think you know I have said this before.

What I would address is how we still assent. The question had a context, as did Peter. Peter was raised Jewish by parents and rabbis. During the Lord’s ministry opinions came from the “magisterium " of the time, even from every faction. Scripture and tradition also gave the backdrop of how to judge whom Jesus was. There was a covenant also. And finally Peter had the Lord’s actions etc, that he had been observing. All these things God used, discerned, and illuminated for Peter. In essence Peter assented to the Truth that could be found in all those '(name removed by moderator)uts”. Peter did not just assent to the Father and His personal intervention but to all who had Godly (name removed by moderator)ut into Peter since his childhood.

As you know one could say, well Peter was an apostle but I would say we all need that personal divine illumination. The question to Peter was not meant to be for an “official” answer. Whom do men say that I am, not just what does the Sanhedrin say or the High priest etc. I think it raises the dignity of every man when the Creator of the universe taps you on the shoulder and really cares to know, “What do you think ?” Almost a rhetorical question , for God certainly wants to fill you up with what to think.

Sorry if you have read this before from me. To hard to remember the who and where i posted such sentiments before. I do appreciate when you seem to know and articulate my positions. Can’t ask for much more than that (well yes I can but…).

Blessings

 

[crai7]

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.

Well how many Catholics delve into the history and theology of the Protestant reformation? Probably only a handful, those with an interest in history.

Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church was the only ‘official’ church during the dark and middle ages, but I’m sure there must have been many independent thinkers (who could read) who questioned what they were being taught, and there may have been some underground churches.

On the other hand, it is not true to say that the church from the time of the Apostles was Roman Catholic. That only came later. At first the Roman state attempted to wipe Christianity of the face of the earth. Prior to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century, the church was a very different place.

 

[Peter_J]

On the other hand, it is not true to say that the church from the time of the Apostles was Roman Catholic.

I don’t think I’m going to argue with you, seeing as most posters call us “The Catholic Church” (or TCC if you want to be a little hip) anyhow.

 

[rcwitness]

Well how many Catholics delve into the history and theology of the Protestant reformation? Probably only a handful, those with an interest in history.

Sure Catholics should learn more about it!

Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church was the only ‘official’ church during the dark and middle ages,

what do you mean by “official”?

but I’m sure there must have been many independent thinkers (who could read) who questioned what they were being taught, and there may have been some underground churches.

More importantly, there were Saints who were unjustly judged by unlawful Church leaders. St Joan of Arc comes to mind. The problem with a theory like this, is it forgets that a genuine Christian group who sees corruption in leadership, has a duty to Jesus (and His Eucharist) to defend the faith, not to go underground from the Church who claims Him and His Eucharist!

On the other hand, it is not true to say that the church from the time of the Apostles was Roman Catholic. That only came later. At first the Roman state attempted to wipe Christianity of the face of the earth. Prior to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century, the church was a very different place.

Yes… although we wouldn’t say the Church was established in the 4th century, but the government lifted it’s persecution at that time. That’s when the church came out of the underground.

 

[Peter_J]

More importantly, there were Saints who were unjustly judged by unlawful Church leaders. St Joan of Arc comes to mind. The problem with a theory like this, is it forgets that a genuine Christian group who sees corruption in leadership, has a duty to Jesus (and His Eucharist) to defend the faith, not to go underground from the Church who claims Him and His Eucharist!

That’s a very good point; but in order to be fair I think we need to also say that that duty can be weighed against other considerations. (I’m sure Jan Hus’ followers found themselves wishing that he *had *gone underground, when they saw him burned at the stake!)

P. S. Of course, St. Joan of Arc didn’t have any chance to go underground once she was captured. It was either sign or die.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I tell protestants unless you want to end up converting to Catholicism then don’t study history

If someone would have told me 10 years ago I’d be a Catholic defending the Catholic faith, I probably would have tried to cast a demon out of them

 

[benhur]

I tell protestants unless you want to end up converting to Catholicism then don’t study history

Hi La,

And yet so many Catholics become Protestant, not from a history lesson about Christ, but in actually meeting Him ? Or so they tell me.

It’s all in the eyes of the beholder. Seek and ye shall find. You want to see Catholic justification in history, you will. You want to see Orthodox or Protestant justification in history, you will.

A bit like the same thing that melts wax hardens clay.

I mean we differ at interpreting scripture, so we would also differ on interpreting patristic wrings also.

Blessings

 

[Padres1969]

I tell protestants unless you want to end up converting to Catholicism then don’t study history

If someone would have told me 10 years ago I’d be a Catholic defending the Catholic faith, I probably would have tried to cast a demon out of them

Or if you’re a Catholic and study history you may end up becoming Protestant

 

[Peter_J]

Hi La,

And yet so many Catholics become Protestant, not from a history lesson about Christ, but in actually meeting Him ? Or so they tell me.

It’s all in the eyes of the beholder. Seek and ye shall find. You want to see Catholic justification in history, you will. You want to see Orthodox or Protestant justification in history, you will.

A bit like the same thing that melts wax hardens clay.

I mean we differ at interpreting scripture, so we would also differ on interpreting patristic wrings also.

Blessings

I think the best thing is humility, whoever you are.

Of course, that comment might have more to do with the fact that I watched “Keys of the kingdom” the last two days.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

And yet so many Catholics become Protestant, not from a history lesson about Christ, but in actually meeting Him ? Or so they tell me.

It’s all in the eyes of the beholder. Seek and ye shall find. You want to see Catholic justification in history, you will. You want to see Orthodox or Protestant justification in history, you will.

A bit like the same thing that melts wax hardens clay.

I mean we differ at interpreting scripture, so we would also differ on interpreting patristic wrings also.

Blessings

There’s something to be said for the simplicity of just calling out to Jesus. That’s what protestantism offers, no real structure or anything after that. It’s supposed to be Jesus and we not Jesus and me.

Study just came out that said Catholics who leave for protestantism are actually becoming agnostic or Atheists in the long run.

 

[Reuben_J]

There’s something to be said for the simplicity of just calling out to Jesus. That’s what protestantism offers, no real structure or anything after that. It’s supposed to be Jesus and we not Jesus and me.

Study just came out that said Catholics who leave for protestantism are actually becoming agnostic or Atheists in the long run.

And many of these really have problem with authority, so there you are.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I tell protestants unless you want to end up converting to Catholicism then don’t study history

Didn’t work for me.

Also, I first studied Church history in a Protestant church, when they used to offer courses from a university affiliated with their denomination. Most of the students are still Protestant.

It sounds cool to say some variation of “to know history is to cease to be Protestant.” It appeals especially to the American consumerist mentality, which causes us to love slogans and taglines, because it makes us feel like we are such good advertisers in some market places of religions.

No judgement. I have admittedly uses the line before too; it is humourous and edgy, after all. However, there are a lot of people who study history, but still have misconceptions. I know people that were in the same Church History classes as me, but who still think the early Church was like Protestantism till St. Constantine used the Council of Nicaea to inject pagan ideas into Christianity. The class never taught that; it was a little biased sometimes in its interpretation of facts, but the facts themselves were accurate and well presented.

History isn’t magic, unfortunately. :dts:

 

[rcwitness]

There’s something to be said for the simplicity of just calling out to Jesus. That’s what protestantism offers, no real structure or anything after that. It’s supposed to be Jesus and we not Jesus and me.

There is another (Protestant) side to everything. But yes, Protestantism offers Jesus also! And that is where they hold up the Catholic Faith!

It is both… Jesus and me/Jesus and us. He is our King of first importance. And we (Cats) believe He guides through a hierarchy which is NOT opposed to His guidance by His Spirit. His Spirit gives understanding. His leaders give Confirmation and unified order.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Didn’t work for me.

Also, I first studied Church history in a Protestant church, when they used to offer courses from a university affiliated with their denomination. Most of the students are still Protestant.

It sounds cool to say some variation of “to know history is to cease to be Protestant.” It appeals especially to the American consumerist mentality, which causes us to love slogans and taglines, because it makes us feel like we are such good advertisers in some market places of religions.

No judgement. I have admittedly uses the line before too; it is humourous and edgy, after all. However, there are a lot of people who study history, but still have misconceptions. I know people that were in the same Church History classes as me, but who still think the early Church was like Protestantism till St. Constantine used the Council of Nicaea to inject pagan ideas into Christianity. The class never taught that; it was a little biased sometimes in its interpretation of facts, but the facts themselves were accurate and well presented.

History isn’t magic, unfortunately. :dts:

Yeah, I’m not saying their werent some conflicting opinions. And TBH, I wish the EARLY church had more work to examine than what we do have.

However, if you read Justin Martyr’s first apology and the Didache you get a bird’s eye view of early worship and practice and it looks WAAAAAY more Catholic than protestant.

And I have heard that at protestant seminary they cover up to about 100 AD, then take a lunch break and come back and start talking about Martin Luther’s split. There’s 1400 years there left out. That’s like your grandfather telling you that he wants to tell you all about his life, but stops at age 5 then picks up again at age 65 lol

And I’m a convert from the protestant side, BTW. Reality brought me to the Catholic church. Had to be honest with myself after a decade of doing my own research.