P
Peter_J
Guest
I think the wording of the title contains one part of the answer: if they call it “Catholic Church history” they will presumably be uninterested or only slightly interested.
Or as Neofight put it,
- Status
Or as Neofight put it,
C
cmodrmac
Guest
we share Church history till the Tudors-in the United States we have many fine Episcopal boarding and prep schools-our common history is taught-and it does not end there -I do agree that the Counter reformation is not focused on as much -likewise we respect the Pope and his teachings
S
steido01
Guest
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
I’m protestant and we most certainly do learn Catholic Church history because we are Catholic Church history.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hey, I’m not gonna complain if a Lutheran pastor wants to defend Catholic truth against protestant misrepresentation.One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us…
S
steido01
Guest
:thankyou:
I noticed that. Never seen it used that way before, but I like it. Wonder if that could catch on.
But back to the OP- learning church history might make a ‘Protestant’ more catholic, but not necessarily more Catholic. When a Lutheran looks at church history, for example, it only confirms what he already believes about the church: That it has existed since Christ founded it on Peter and the Apostles, that it continued in both the East and West through the Great Schism of 1054, that this ancient church was professed most clearly at Augsburg, and that it shall, with Christ’s promise, continue until the Last Day and the gates of Hell shall never prevail against it.
Lutherans would see the Council of Trent as a well-meaning but erring council that came a decade and a half after Augsburg. So then the question becomes: which Confession (Augsburg or Trent) best exhibits what the Apostolic Faith, as recorded in Holy Scripture, teaches? It’s not difficult or unreasonable to be a student of history and not be Catholic. It is impossible to study Christian history and not be catholic.
P
Peter_J
Guest
What about the Oriental Orthodox (Alexandrian) Churches?
I’m not just changing the subject here: if you take this, shall we say “Lutheran-style even-handed approach” (I.e. not seeing one side or the other as being in schism from the other side) to the Great East-West Schism, then it’s only natural to ask if the same thinking applies to the schism that resulted from the Council of Chalcedon.
P
Peter_J
Guest
You a Catholic?
S
steido01
Guest
Dunno. Been accused of it before. 'Course I also just got told I “nailed it.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I get what you mean, and that probably is the best way to describe Lutheranism. Christology-wise, we’re probably closer to East than West (I sometimes wonder why we kept the Filioque…), and that explains why if our pastors convert, it’s nearly even-split between Latin and Greek… questions for another thread.
To answer your question, I don’t know enough about the non-Calcedonians to be useful. Maybe another Lutheran could help out. Recent ecumenical work would suggest that even the Nestorians aren’t truly Nestorians in the way that we Westerners are accustomed to thinking. So maybe that would convince the OO’s that we Westerners and EO aren’t in error? Or maybe it’d do the opposite. Again, I’m no expert. I’d say pretty confidently, however, that wherever the Word is preached, there is more than a possibility of Christians being also - even if they misunderstand the nature of God. For who can understand Him fully?
A
andrewstx
Guest
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.
Actully the Episcopalians do study church history. They do it as part of the branch theory.
And to try and prove their own apostolic succession.
K
Kliska
Guest
There’s several layers to this question. The first would be that almost all Protestants (denominations, perhaps not individuals) learn earliest catholic Church history in scripture (yes, from our perspective it would be “small c” catholic). So, it would wrong to say we don’t study early Church history, but right to say most don’t study early RCC history.
It would be the extrabiblical records that would be in question, so anything in those records would be superseded by scripture. I would say the ECF’s (outside of scripture) are studied more by the more liturgical traditions that trace their traditions closer to the RCC. The more non-liturgical denominations would rely much more on scripture since only those writings are considered inerrant, and are, in fact the earliest writings we have by those closest to the events contained therein.
It would be the extrabiblical records that would be in question, so anything in those records would be superseded by scripture. I would say the ECF’s (outside of scripture) are studied more by the more liturgical traditions that trace their traditions closer to the RCC. The more non-liturgical denominations would rely much more on scripture since only those writings are considered inerrant, and are, in fact the earliest writings we have by those closest to the events contained therein.
P
PJM
Guest
OK
And my friend, Just HOW to you mean that? The more specific you are; the more specific we too can be.
I’m NOT saying you’re wrong [at least not yet]; BUT I sure would like to better understand your position here.
God Bless you,
Patick
E
e_c
Guest
cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/judge-judy-supreme-court-poll/
These are the same folks who will call ancient peoples stupid, “Because, like, they didn’t have microscopes and stuff.”
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, just don’t let the [other] Protestants catch you bowing.
T
twf
Guest
Lutheranism is a completely different matter. Obviously as a Catholic I believe Lutheranism is lacking some things, but you are much closer to Catholicism than Evangelicalism is. By now you should know that on these forums the phrase 'Protestants do this…" or “Protestants think this…” or “why do Protestants not do this…?” etc. refers to Evangelicals without taking into account the very different situation of say liberal mainline Protestant churches, confessional Lutherans, anglo-catholic Anglicans, or any other group that doesn’t fit within the Evangelical paradigm.
R
randomuser
Guest
Because - and this is an unpleasant answer - many Protestants believe Constantine (not Jesus) founded the Catholic church, and as such, they don’t want to learn what’s to them “pagan” history. When Constantine’s no longer taboo and is openly talked about, I think that’s when you’ll find more Protestants wanting to learn Catholic Church history.
S
steve_b
Guest
Nice story, I’m sure it feels good to be homeWhen 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.
J
JustaServant
Guest
It’s not taboo, it’s been beaten to death here…and refuted.
Why don’t you enlighten us all?
Please, we wait in anticipation of your knowledge and wisdom.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I think a study of the history of the Canon of Scripture would be appropriate. That is, how the Church is able to call what is in the canon Scripture and inerrant. It seems logical to study how we came to “know” the bible and who was involved.
- Status