Catholics: How important is studying Church history to being a Christian?

[Phil 1:21]

No, you suggested that I never read Mark, John, Acts, Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. And you suggested again that I have never read them, even after I informed you that I had in fact read them.

Those are personal insults.

Your reaponse regarding scripture showed a lack of knowledge. That's on you. And with that, I'm done playing whatever this latest game of yours is. If you want to discuss the topic, good. Otherwise, have a blessed day.

 

[PeaceB]

Your reaponse regarding scripture showed a lack of knowledge. That's on you. And with that, I'm done plying whatever this latest game of yours is. If you want to discuss the topic, good. Otherwise, have a blessed day.

No, you did not write that my response showed a lack of knowledge. You suggested that I had never even read the books, even when I specifically told you that I had read them. That is on you (Matthew 12:36).

And I am not playing any games with you. I asked you to stop insulting me. That is not game playing.

And I am more than happy to discuss the topic, considering that Scripture does not teach the doctrines that you hold.

Have a blessed day too, my brother in Christ.

 

[GingerBeer]

Ginger, you stated: "There were a lot of them and they wrote a whole lot. Too much for anybody to read in a reasonable time unless it is the profession to read them and know what they teach". Ginger That is exactly my point, thus why many Protestants Pastors have left the protestant church and our now Catholic, because it was there profession to read them and know what they teach. Amen

I can't help but think that you're fishing for a conversion

 

[PanDeVida]

I can't help but think that you're fishing for a conversion

Ginger, of course I am, though I am not St. Peter the Fisher of Men. Ginger here is a clue, What Church can tell you or anyone to come Home? There can only be one and You have the name of that Church on the tip of your lips to shoutout from the roof top, I need not say the Church's name, you already know it because it is the Holy Spirit, that put it there.

Come Home.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ginger, of course I am, though I am not St. Peter the Fisher of Men. Ginger here is a clue, What Church can tell you or anyone to come Home? There can only be one and You have the name of that Church on the tip of your lips to shoutout from the roof top, I need not say the Church's name, you already know it because it is the Holy Spirit, that put it there.

Come Home.

Thanks for reminding me that my Home is in heaven and not here. John 14.

 

[tz620q]

Thanks for reminding me that my Home is in heaven and not here. John 14.

This reminds of of a quote from GK Chesterton. When asked what his definition of Heaven was he said the single word, "Home".

 

[Phil 1:21]

This reminds of of a quote from GK Chesterton. When asked what his definition of Heaven was he said the single word, "Home".

Your post reminded me of a quote I heard the other day. The good thing about being born again is that this world is all the hell I'll ever experience. The bad thing if I wasn't born again is that this world would be all the Heaven I'd ever experience.

 

[Targaryen]

How important is it to study the Church founders and do you think one can be a proper Catholic (by extension, a proper Christian) if they do not nor have desire to study Church founders and the development of doctrines from a Roman Catholic standpoint?

Lemme know!

I don't know how Christians keep asking this when their own tradition all stems from the ECF's as much as Holy Scripture. Or how, Christians need to make the need to disregarding studying the ECF's.

Just baffling.

 

[Open Heart]

How important is it to study the Church founders and do you think one can be a proper Catholic (by extension, a proper Christian) if they do not nor have desire to study Church founders and the development of doctrines from a Roman Catholic standpoint?

Lemme know!

To be a proper Christian, one professes a belief in Christ and is baptized with the Trinitarian formula (which is why Protestants are also Christians).

The problem is that baptism also initiates one into the Church, the body of Christ. With this comes a responsibility to study and understand the orthodox teachings of the Church, such as the incarnation, etc. Without a basic background into the history of the Early Church, a Christian can be easily fooled into wrong interpretations. For example, without knowing the teachings of the Early Church, a Christian can easily be duped into accepting ideas such as sola scriptura, a symbolic only interpretation of communion, not understanding apostolic succession, being opposed to the baptism of children, etc.

The truth is that whether Catholic or Protestant, religious education rarely progresses beyond a basic level. It never reaches Church history. It is very sad that adult Christians do not understand the faith on an adult level. Most cannot articulate the Trinity in a way that doesn't state a heresy of one sort or another -- not that this is easy LOL. Modern society tends to be anti-intellectual, and so a the necessity of a mature understanding is often scorned.

I can say that for me as an Evangelical, learning about the views of the Early Church Fathers made all the difference in the world. I had to swallow the hard truth that the early church was NOT Evangelical, but was, well, Catholic. It went down my throat like nails. But the truth is the truth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

To be a proper Christian, one professes a belief in Christ and is baptized with the Trinitarian formula (which is why Protestants are also Christians).

The problem is that baptism also initiates one into the Church, the body of Christ. With this comes a responsibility to study and understand the orthodox teachings of the Church, such as the incarnation, etc. Without a basic background into the history of the Early Church, a Christian can be easily fooled into wrong interpretations. For example, without knowing the teachings of the Early Church, a Christian can easily be duped into accepting ideas such as sola scriptura, a symbolic only interpretation of communion, not understanding apostolic succession, being opposed to the baptism of children, etc.

The truth is that whether Catholic or Protestant, religious education rarely progresses beyond a basic level. It never reaches Church history. It is very sad that adult Christians do not understand the faith on an adult level. Most cannot articulate the Trinity in a way that doesn't state a heresy of one sort or another -- not that this is easy LOL. Modern society tends to be anti-intellectual, and so a the necessity of a mature understanding is often scorned.

I can say that for me as an Evangelical, learning about the views of the Early Church Fathers made all the difference in the world. I had to swallow the hard truth that the early church was NOT Evangelical, but was, well, Catholic. It went down my throat like nails. But the truth is the truth.

Did you ever consider that the early church was actually Orthodox?

 

[Open Heart]

Did you ever consider that the early church was actually Orthodox?

It was. In those days, It was Catholic/Orthodox.

 

[prodromos]

Did you ever consider that the early church was actually Orthodox?

Did you?

 

[Soyeong]

How important is it to study the Church founders and do you think one can be a proper Catholic (by extension, a proper Christian) if they do not nor have desire to study Church founders and the development of doctrines from a Roman Catholic standpoint?

Lemme know!

I think it can be helpful to study the Church Fathers as well as the writings of other Christians if not at least to see that they struggled with some of the same issues that we do. However, it would be wrong to suggest that we need study them in order to be a proper Christian because that would imply that the people who were Christians before them weren't proper Christians. However, I'll note that you said "founders" instead of "Fathers", and the word "ekklesia" was used in the Septuagint to refer the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, so if you're talking about Moses as the founder of the Church, then it would be important to study his books, as they are foundational to the rest of the Bible, much more so than studying the development doctrines from a Roman Catholic standpoint. By the time Roman Catholics got done with them, they were less recognizable. Much of what Christ said and did was based on the books of Moses, so someone who didn't studying him would certainly lack in their understanding of the rest of the Bible, though "proper" seems to be loosely defined.

 

[friend of]

I'm surprised this thread is still going tbqh

I think it can be helpful to study the Church Fathers as well as the writings of other Christians if not at least to see that they struggled with some of the same issues that we do.

Agreed. There is never anything inherently wrong with education and studying history. The study of history can be foundational to our comprehensions of why things are the way they are at present, and without such study one can miss how certain events fit together into coherent temporal flow.

so if you're talking about Moses as the founder of the Church,

Nope. I'm talking about Acts and the years immediately following the transition and how those years shaped the early authentic apostolic church.

By the time Roman Catholics got done with them, they were less recognizable.

Why do you think that is? Subsequent cases of fatigued overstudy?

 

[Soyeong]

I'm surprised this thread is still going tbqh



Agreed. There is never anything inherently wrong with education and studying history. The study of history can be foundational to our comprehensions of why things are the way they are at present, and without such study one can miss how certain events fit together into coherent temporal flow.



Nope. I'm talking about Acts and the years immediately following the transition and how those years shaped the early authentic apostolic church.



Why do you think that is? Subsequent cases of fatigued overstudy?

According to Acts 6:13, Stephen was falsely accused of teaching against God's Law and according to Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps at the direction of James to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to practice obedience to it, so if no one in leadership was teaching against obeying what God had commanded, then all Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10. So that is the authentic doctrine of the rebuilders of the Church, which has since been manhandled.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Did you?

Yes, I have, indeed. My conclusion is that there was one Church which was universal (catholic) and orthodox (holding to right doctrine). The successor denominations, although claiming to be that one church are mistaken.

 

[PeaceB]

Yes, I have, indeed. My conclusion is that there was one Church which was universal (catholic) and orthodox (holding to right doctrine). The successor denominations, although claiming to be that one church are mistaken.

Hmmm. Roughly when did this one Church dissolve, or cease holding right doctrine?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hmmm. Roughly when did this one Church dissolve, or cease holding right doctrine?

Officially, in 1054 at the Great Schism.

 

[PeaceB]

Hmmm. So up until around the year 1054 the church that split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church held right doctrine?

Roughly when did this church stop holding right doctrine?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hmmm. So up until around the year 1054 the church that split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church held right doctrine?

Roughly when did this church stop holding right doctrine?

This is called bating and is a violation of CF rules.