Why don't Protestants learn Catholic Church history?

[SyroMalankara]

Actually it appears to me the Episcopal Church’s view of its history differs from the history you prescribe to it.

“The beginnings of the Church of England, from which The Episcopal Church derives, date to at least the second century, when merchants and other travelers first brought Christianity to England.”

episcopalchurch.org/page/history-episcopal-church

They seem to be reinventing much more than I suspected. Not only does the Episcopal Church not derive from the Church of England, that story following is as legendary as Joseph of Arimethae. The entire portion seems made out of whole cloth.

 

[Peter_J]

when I encounter holier-than-thou Catholics who act like CAF is boot camp where all my foundational beliefs are wrong and have to be removed and my faith has to be rebuilt from the ground up like a drill sergeant treats a buck private in an army boot camp

I think you’ve seen Patch Adams too many times.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Hi Peter, I’m having difficulty understanding why Little Sheep’s post doesn’t make sense to you. I hesitate trying to speak for Little Sheep but this was more or less my sense of the post.

If the Catholic Church was the first founded by Christ and others branched from there, then the lineage still holds and it is Christ Whom sustains Protestants as well. Say I plant a twig and it sprouts into a larger tree and then branches of the tree develop. The branches’ lineage is traced back to that original twig. And the leaves on the branches might not even be 1 exact same shape, size, or shade of color. Still all one tree though.

Thank you, Sy Noe. I didn’t elucidate fully last night, but you have done a good job of enriching what I was getting at.

Peter J.'s points are well taken by me, though. I cannot say if other Protestants would agree with me that the Catholic Church was/is “the first,” but I surely accept that as part of my path towards Truth. Also, I have certainly heard people accuse Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholics church proffers to be (snark)…Protestant.

For me, it’s straightforward - one is a Catholic or a Protestant when one says they are and not when someone else says they are!

 

[Little_Sheep]

Any Protestant who is serious about learning about their faith would pretty much have to study Catholic history and the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and others. I can’t see how anyone could start at the Reformation or even why anyone would want to.

You are correct, of course. Perhaps my personal path is singular (16 years of Protestant school education and a college minor in Religion), but I have studied much (could probably never say all Catholic history to include the important writings you mention. And I know that - as far as us protesters go - I’m not the only one who has delved deeply into Catholicism’s roots.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Probably rather than reinvented, I would say discern or interpret or understand differently.

Yes. Reinvented is not only uncharitable, but also untrue.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Well put and good post. FollowChrist34.

I must admit that it becomes tiresome to me and makes me want to quit even participating in CAF when I read from those who consider non-Catholic Christians like me to be inferior and lacking in so many ways. In fact, not too long ago I left CAF for over a month because of it and almost didn’t return.

There are those who act like Protestants are the enemy that must be defeated or a bug that needs to be squashed instead of brothers and sisters in Christ.

For me, the best Catholic witnesses are those who take an invitational approach to sharing the faith, who in charity reveal how my Christian faith could be enhanced even more through Catholicism and Catholic principles. I listen with open ears to such folks who invite me to a higher level through Catholicism and help explain doctrines and things I don’t understand fully or may not even be aware of yet.

However, when I encounter holier-than-thou Catholics who act like CAF is boot camp where all my foundational beliefs are wrong and have to be removed and my faith has to be rebuilt from the ground up like a drill sergeant treats a buck private in an army boot camp, it has the opposite effect and makes me stop listening to anything else they have to say and just ignore them from then on.

Sorry,.I just wanted to get this off my chest. No offense intended to anyone in particular.

Peace, brother. We are all on the same team. But religious wonks like us sometimes like to dissect the butterfly. In any event, I love meeting and living and growing and just being with other humans who walk through and in Christ’s light. And I don’t change my mind or my enthusiasm about those humans when I find out they live in a different neighborhood than I do!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Hi Peter, I’m having difficulty understanding why Little Sheep’s post doesn’t make sense to you. I hesitate trying to speak for Little Sheep but this was more or less my sense of the post.

If the Catholic Church was the first founded by Christ and others branched from there, then the lineage still holds and it is Christ Whom sustains Protestants as well. Say I plant a twig and it sprouts into a larger tree and then branches of the tree develop. The branches’ lineage is traced back to that original twig. And the leaves on the branches might not even be 1 exact same shape, size, or shade of color. Still all one tree though.

I am not a Catholic (at least not the Papal kind ), but I will pretend to be one, in order to give you what I consider a very sound “Catholic” answer:

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be that the Church is a vine. (The Gardner likes to call the vine Cathy.) It was planted in a specific part of the vineyard; let’s call this part of the vineyard, “first-century Palestine.” From there, the vine grew and branched. Its branches can be found in many sections of the vineyard - in “second-century Egypt,” in “thirteenth-century France,” in “twenty-first-century Canada,” etc.

Along the way, an intruder (let’s call him “Harry Sea”) would sneak into the vineyard and chop off a twig. Then he would plant that twig in the ground and nurse it, so that it grows into a new vine. Some of Harry Sea’s most famous new vines are the Lucy-Ann vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century Germany” section, and the Angelica vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century England” section.

Now, Angelica vine and Lucy-Ann vine can look very similar to Cathy vine. They are all in the same family, after all! They each produce similar fruit too. Are they the same vine though? No, they are not. Are their roots the same? No. Cathy vine’s roots are in “first-century Palestine.” Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines’ roots are in “sixteenth-century Germany” and “sixteenth-century England,” respectively. You see: they are all related, having DNA of the same kind and making similar fruit, but they still have different roots. Just because Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines came from Cathy vines, doesn’t mean their roots are in the same part of the vineyard!

 

[Little_Sheep]

I am not a Catholic (at least not the Papal kind ), but I will pretend to be one, in order to give you what I consider a very sound “Catholic” answer:

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be that the Church is a vine. (The Gardner likes to call the vine Cathy.) It was planted in a specific part of the vineyard; let’s call this part of the vineyard, “first-century Palestine.” From there, the vine grew and branched. Its branches can be found in many sections of the vineyard - in “second-century Egypt,” in “thirteenth-century France,” in “twenty-first-century Canada,” etc.

Along the way, an intruder (let’s call him “Harry Sea”) would sneak into the vineyard and chop off a twig. Then he would plant that twig in the ground and nurse it, so that it grows into a new vine. Some of Harry Sea’s most famous new vines are the Lucy-Ann vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century Germany” section, and the Angelica vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century England” section.

Now, Angelica vine and Lucy-Ann vine can look very similar to Cathy vine. They are all in the same family, after all! They each produce similar fruit too. Are they the same vine though? No, they are not. Are their roots the same? No. Cathy vine’s roots are in “first-century Palestine.” Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines’ roots are in “sixteenth-century Germany” and “sixteenth-century England,” respectively. You see: they are all related, having DNA of the same kind and making similar fruit, but they still have different roots. Just because Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines came from Cathy vines, doesn’t mean their roots are in the same part of the vineyard!

Very good.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you, Sy Noe. I didn’t elucidate fully last night, but you have done a good job of enriching what I was getting at.

Peter J.'s points are well taken by me, though. I cannot say if other Protestants would agree with me that the Catholic Church was/is “the first,” but I surely accept that as part of my path towards Truth. **Also, I have certainly heard people accuse Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholics church proffers to be (snark)…Protestant.
**
For me, it’s straightforward - one is a Catholic or a Protestant when one says they are and not when someone else says they are!

In regards to the bolded, you don’t have to tell me about it.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well put and good post. FollowChrist34.

I must admit that it becomes tiresome to me and makes me want to quit even participating in CAF when I read from those who consider non-Catholic Christians like me to be inferior and lacking in so many ways. In fact, not too long ago I left CAF for over a month because of it and almost didn’t return.

There are those who act like Protestants are the enemy that must be defeated or a bug that needs to be squashed instead of brothers and sisters in Christ.

For me, the best Catholic witnesses are those who take an invitational approach to sharing the faith, who in charity reveal how my Christian faith could be enhanced even more through Catholicism and Catholic principles. I listen with open ears to such folks who invite me to a higher level through Catholicism and help explain doctrines and things I don’t understand fully or may not even be aware of yet.

However, when I encounter holier-than-thou Catholics who act like CAF is boot camp where all my foundational beliefs are wrong and have to be removed and my faith has to be rebuilt from the ground up like a drill sergeant treats a buck private in an army boot camp, it has the opposite effect and makes me stop listening to anything else they have to say and just ignore them from then on.

Sorry,.I just wanted to get this off my chest. No offense intended to anyone in particular.

I have said this before, not just to you - I do not think you, or anyone for that matter, to take so much stock in an online internet forum discussion on something so important that can change the direction of your life. Not that what you get from the internet is not useful but discussing important issue virtually may not be the same as when you do it in person with someone who you know in real life.

As far as CAF is concerned, members are just internet users using usernames. They can never replace real life people. Then again, we cannot totally discount whatever our individual respective agenda may be when we come here. And it can be just agendas.

It can be different than when you are real people working or representing your church/parish. And besides, for all the reasonably good information one can find here, CAF is nevertheless not a spokesperson for Catholicism. You still need to go to a priest or real people working in the Church to do that.

Sorry to say that. It is by no means to discourage you but just an opinion on what to expect on an internet forum. It is not worth losing your head over.

 

[benhur]

Any Protestant who is serious about learning about their faith would pretty much have to study Catholic history and the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and others. I can’t see how anyone could start at the Reformation or even why anyone would want to.

Hi yankee,

Agree. After all, the reformers themselves gleaned much from Patristic writings.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I am not a Catholic (at least not the Papal kind ), but I will pretend to be one, in order to give you what I consider a very sound “Catholic” answer:

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be that the Church is a vine. (The Gardner likes to call the vine Cathy.) It was planted in a specific part of the vineyard; let’s call this part of the vineyard, “first-century Palestine.” From there, the vine grew and branched. Its branches can be found in many sections of the vineyard - in “second-century Egypt,” in “thirteenth-century France,” in “twenty-first-century Canada,” etc.

Along the way, an intruder (let’s call him “Harry Sea”) would sneak into the vineyard and chop off a twig. Then he would plant that twig in the ground and nurse it, so that it grows into a new vine. Some of Harry Sea’s most famous new vines are the Lucy-Ann vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century Germany” section, and the Angelica vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century England” section.

Now, Angelica vine and Lucy-Ann vine can look very similar to Cathy vine. They are all in the same family, after all! They each produce similar fruit too. Are they the same vine though? No, they are not. Are their roots the same? No. Cathy vine’s roots are in “first-century Palestine.” Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines’ roots are in “sixteenth-century Germany” and “sixteenth-century England,” respectively. You see: they are all related, having DNA of the same kind and making similar fruit, but they still have different roots. Just because Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines came from Cathy vines, doesn’t mean their roots are in the same part of the vineyard!

Hi z,

Sounds good from a growers viewpoint but not from a scientific point of DNA. DNA is more "rooting’’ than what it produces, it seems to me. DNA is more substantive of a heritage, carries more of the essence than say a root, or branch, or vine. At best the fruit really determines the quality of essence, not the root . And the fruit justifies the root , branch and vine. Not the other way around. After all, Jesus says you shall know them by their fruit. He also says do not tear up the roots to see if they be legit. Let them be, for time will tell, with the fruit.

Blessings

PS- Indeed some grape varieties are better than others, even for different purposes even “flavors”, but they are all still “grapes”. From all of them the Lord will press a perfect wine for His Wedding.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well put and good post. FollowChrist34.

I must admit that it becomes tiresome to me and makes me want to quit even participating in CAF when I read from those who consider non-Catholic Christians like me to be inferior and lacking in so many ways. In fact, not too long ago I left CAF for over a month because of it and almost didn’t return.

There are those who act like Protestants are the enemy that must be defeated or a bug that needs to be squashed instead of brothers and sisters in Christ.

For me, the best Catholic witnesses are those who take an invitational approach to sharing the faith, who in charity reveal how my Christian faith could be enhanced even more through Catholicism and Catholic principles. I listen with open ears to such folks who invite me to a higher level through Catholicism and help explain doctrines and things I don’t understand fully or may not even be aware of yet.

However, when I encounter holier-than-thou Catholics who act like CAF is boot camp where all my foundational beliefs are wrong and have to be removed and my faith has to be rebuilt from the ground up like a drill sergeant treats a buck private in an army boot camp, it has the opposite effect and makes me stop listening to anything else they have to say and just ignore them from then on.

Sorry,.I just wanted to get this off my chest. No offense intended to anyone in particular.

Just saw this. Hang in there, my fellow Christian!

My view is actually pretty close to spot on - I am basing it on the CCC and Vatican II. The view that Protestants or Orthodox are not members of the Body of Christ is NOT the official view of the RCC. I am CORRECT on this. I, too, get tired of the misinformation, bullying and attacking on this issue. Speaking as a Catholic, it is embarrassing.

God bless. And, again, don’t go anywhere - strength in numbers…

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Hi z,

Sounds good from a growers viewpoint but not from a scientific point of DNA. DNA is more "rooting’’ than what it produces, it seems to me. DNA is more substantive of a heritage, carries more of the essence than say a root, or branch, or vine. At best the fruit really determines the quality of essence, not the root . And the fruit justifies the root , branch and vine. Not the other way around. After all, Jesus says you shall know them by their fruit. He also says do not tear up the roots to see if they be legit. Let them be, for time will tell, with the fruit.

Blessings

PS- Indeed some grape varieties are better than others, even for different purposes even “flavors”, but they are all still “grapes”. From all of them the Lord will press a perfect wine for His Wedding.

From a rationalistic, scientific point of view, DNA is more substantive, and the fruit is really what determines the quality of the essence. However, the quality on a vineyard’s produce cannot be judged by such a worldview. :nope:

You see, the quality of the fruit is intrinsically tied to the root. Why? Because the root draws nutrients from its specific patch of soil, and the qualities of this soil have tremendous difference on the fruit produced. This relationship is the basis of the concept of terroir, which is a fundamental consideration in the cultivation of grapes, because it can have tremendous difference in the quality of the taste of the fruit, and subsequently wine, produced. Taste is a central element in viniculture, my friend. The Cathy vine and the other vines have different qualities of taste in their fruit due to terroir.

The Cathy vine is influenced by the “Apostolic soil” found in “first-century Palestine,” while the other vines are influenced by very different soil. Yes, there is a genetic similarity due to Lucy-Ann and Angelica being derived from Cathy. However, this similarity does not imply fruit of comparable quality. Some are of better quality than others, and surely it is fit to uproot the ones of inferior quality.

Your assumption that the fruit are comparable is mistaken. Furthermore, the decision to start analysis from a very impersonal consideration of DNA, rather than a human-oriented perspective of taste in the final product, reveals an over-rationalistic worldview characteristic of modernity. No authentic vintager would forsake the traditions regarding viniculture and choose instead to adopt a novel rationalism such as that. Reason is certainly a nice supplement to tradition, but over-reliance only leads to wild ideas like yours. Tradition is important.

PS - I am amazed that you said my previous example was good from a grower’s POV, but not a scientific POV. I presume you are taking the scientific POV? The thing is, in my example, the “Gardner,” or grower, was clearly a metaphor for Christ. So when you said,

Sounds good from a growers viewpoint but…

the impression you gave, given the only meaning possible within the context of my analogy, was:

Sounds good from Christ’s viewpoint but…

Context, context, context. Context is important.

 

[Peter_J]

It is by no means to discourage you but just an opinion on what to expect on an internet forum. It is not worth losing your head over.

From my own experience, let me add that I used to spend a lot of time on an Orthodox forum. I still go there on occasion, but I don’t make it a significant part of my life anymore. Forums are, well, great except when they aren’t.

 

[Wannano]

I am not a Catholic (at least not the Papal kind ), but I will pretend to be one, in order to give you what I consider a very sound “Catholic” answer:

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be that the Church is a vine. (The Gardner likes to call the vine Cathy.) It was planted in a specific part of the vineyard; let’s call this part of the vineyard, “first-century Palestine.” From there, the vine grew and branched. Its branches can be found in many sections of the vineyard - in “second-century Egypt,” in “thirteenth-century France,” in “twenty-first-century Canada,” etc.

Along the way, an intruder (let’s call him “Harry Sea”) would sneak into the vineyard and chop off a twig. Then he would plant that twig in the ground and nurse it, so that it grows into a new vine. Some of Harry Sea’s most famous new vines are the Lucy-Ann vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century Germany” section, and the Angelica vine, which he severed and planted in the “sixteenth-century England” section.

Now, Angelica vine and Lucy-Ann vine can look very similar to Cathy vine. They are all in the same family, after all! They each produce similar fruit too. Are they the same vine though? No, they are not. Are their roots the same? No. Cathy vine’s roots are in “first-century Palestine.” Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines’ roots are in “sixteenth-century Germany” and “sixteenth-century England,” respectively. You see: they are all related, having DNA of the same kind and making similar fruit, but they still have different roots. Just because Lucy-Ann and Angelica vines came from Cathy vines, doesn’t mean their roots are in the same part of the vineyard!

At the risk of copying someone else’s style I am pointing out that in John 15, Jesus, our common Lord makes the statement that He is THEE vine, we are the branches …

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

At the risk of copying someone else’s style I am pointing out that in John 15, Jesus, our common Lord makes the statement that He is THEE vine, we are the branches …

Yes. What is your point? If I was using that Christ’s analogy, then you would have a point. I am not. I am making an entirely different analogy. Do you think all analogies are connected?

When you read that God calls the Church His children, then read later that God calls the Church His bride, do you say, “Oh, God wants us to be His children-brides! He wants us united to Him in incestual paedophilic love!” Of course you do not make that assumption. Why? Because they are two separate analogies that exist in their own separate contexts. To haphazardly combine them together like that would be to ignore their context. Since understanding things in their context is vital to reading, the ignoring of context, as in my example, would be an instance of illiteracy.

Back to my analogy of the vineyard. It had nothing to do with Christ’s parable concerning Him being the Vine. They are two separate analogies that exist for entirely different reasons, in entirely different contexts. Combining the two analogies the way you did ignores context, and so your objection is ultimately rooted in an instance of illiteracy.

PS - Of course, maybe you were joking and you meant your statement as a sarcastic parody of certain strains of Protestantism, meant to illustrate the answer to the thread topic of “Why don’t Protestants learn Catholic Church history?” If you did mean it this way, then you are brilliant satirist. Nice job in playing off the same context-tradition correlation I alluded to in Post #130.

 

[benhur]

From a rationalistic, scientific point of view, DNA is more substantive, and the fruit is really what determines the quality of the essence.

Hiz,

Actually, I think what determines the fruit is the DNA, and as you add, also the soil.

However, the quality on a vineyard’s produce cannot be judged by such a worldview. :nope:

Well nothing to do with worldview. We are trying to use earthly principles (science,farming) to show spiritual principles.

You see, the quality of the fruit is intrinsically tied to the root. Why? Because the root draws nutrients from its specific patch of soil, and the qualities of this soil have tremendous difference on the fruit produced. This relationship is the basis of the concept of terroir, which is a fundamental consideration in the cultivation of grapes, because it can have tremendous difference in the quality of the taste of the fruit, and subsequently wine, produced. Taste is a central element in viniculture, my friend. The Cathy vine and the other vines have different qualities of taste in their fruit due to terroir.

Very good .I agree. Same DNA has potential for variation within it to adapt to its environment.

The Cathy vine is influenced by the “Apostolic soil” found in “first-century Palestine,” while the other vines are influenced by very different soil. Yes, there is a genetic similarity due to Lucy-Ann and Angelica being derived from Cathy. However, this similarity does not imply fruit of comparable quality. Some are of better quality than others, and surely it is fit to uproot the ones of inferior quality.

Agree. We shall know by their fruit.

Your assumption that the fruit are comparable is mistaken. Furthermore, the decision to start analysis from a very impersonal consideration of DNA, rather than a human-oriented perspective of taste in the final product, reveals an over-rationalistic worldview characteristic of modernity.

Maybe we both shoot from the hip too quickly

The Lord is the Grower, the Vine even. I think we both agree on that. We also both agree the Lord will taste and choose who goes into the final wine, and the final determination as to what is pruned, trimmed, cut off, burned etc etc… That is not a impersonal, human, or worldly view.

Now what is the DNA ? His Word, His new life, even unction in a baptized believer,the new creature in Christ ? I mean Lucy,Cathy and Agnes say regeneration as evidenced or produced by Baptism is fundamental to each.

No authentic vintager would forsake the traditions regarding viniculture and choose instead to adopt a novel rationalism such as that. Reason is certainly a nice supplement to tradition, but over-reliance only leads to wild ideas like yours. Tradition is important.

Gotta go , but not sure what you mean.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Your assumption that the fruit are comparable is mistaken.

Not sure what you mean by this. All fruits, grapes, are comparable.That is, not necessarily the same but certainly any grape is or shall be ‘examined’ by the Owner. We are all comparable, to His standard. I am going by your analogy that cut off branches are planted in different "traditional "soil (that is Cathy, Olivia, Lucy etc. have their own traditions/soils.) Perhaps you are saying only Cathy or Olivia have traditional soil , or will be approved ?

Reason is certainly a nice supplement to tradition, but over-reliance only leads to wild ideas like yours.

Again, what was the “wild” idea ? Wild in scriptural analysis metaphor is that which is planted by the enemy . Is it:

“At best the fruit really determines the quality of essence, not the root . And the fruit justifies the root , branch and vine.” or,:

“Indeed some grape varieties are better than others, even for different purposes even “flavors”, but they are all still “grapes”. From all of them the Lord will press a perfect wine for His Wedding.”

As to my first statement, it does not deny "tradition, or the importance of soil etc. What I am trying to reduce is overemphasis, or assumptions that tradition is the paramount determinant, or that we can determine that before any tasting from the Owner.

From the latter statement, the context is questioning whether the only acceptable grapes at harvest time will be only from one tradition/soil or will some grapes be accepted from all ?

Have you determined which plants will be cut down and burned ?.

I agree context is needed. Certainly one can judge traditions, soils, even observe their fruits. The Owner tells us that this is possible.

Yet as Wannano points out, there is another context, and that is our individual soil. So it is a tough analogy, for it is apparent that not all of Cathy’s or Olivia’s or Lucy’s fruit will be acceptable. You may be in the right soil, right vine but not bear fruit, and be cut off. And now we can define, in another context, what is true Soil and Vine , and that being Christ Himself. Now we are out of hierarchical, governance, specific set of beliefs, context to explicit dependence on the Owner himself. That is, what is the grapes identity? Is it , “I am of Cathy”, or," I am of Olivia" or “of Lucy” or , “I am in Christ first and foremost, and in one of the former three secondarily” ? Somehow your analogy must and does account that indeed all three are bearing positive fruit. Therefore it is problematic today to judge, as we are told to, which is more legit than the other.

Another problem is ORAR. Once Right Always Right, That is, because a soil and branch delivered good fruit once, do not assume it will always continue to do so. Also, how do you determine what is legit pruning ? And I would question whether “other” fruit (Lucy) is because of new planting, in new soil, or is it really grafting onto the One True Vine, or a cutting away of old to allow the original good fruit to come forth again ? I don’t think scriptural analogies cite any new planting (except for bad/evil) but cultivating always of the True Vine.

One has to make a decision, for the Owner never said good fruit can come from bad soil /vine. Even Vat 2 says these other branches are bearing good fruit, and therefore can not be a “new” planting, in it’s own “soil”. Another words, Olivia is not a new planting from Cathy in different soil, as is Lucy not a new planting out of Cathy, in new soil.

The Catholic analogy is contradictory.

But thanks for the dialogue. These are just my thoughts and certainly open to refinement.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

Wait - are you sure? Because that’s even worse than what I’m saying.

Can you tell me what the “that” was in this statement? I’m still not clear on what statement of mine you were referring to (if it was in fact a statement of mine).