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

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
This is called bating and is a violation of CF rules.
No, this is a thread on church history, and I asked for your opinion on church history, in relation to a post that you made concerning church history.

Of course, if you prefer not to answer the questions, that is your right. But it is not "baiting" or a violation of CF rules.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,977
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,232.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Officially, in 1054 at the Great Schism.
So how did the Churches in the East change from before the schism. What true teaching had they passed down before which they ceased to do so after the schism, or what new teaching did they invent which did not exist prior to the schism. I would like to know on what basis you say the Orthodox Church is not the Church which existed prior to the schism.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
So how did the Churches in the East change from before the schism. What true teaching had they passed down before which they ceased to do so after the schism, or what new teaching did they invent which did not exist prior to the schism. I would like to know on what basis you say the Orthodox Church is not the Church which existed prior to the schism.

I suggest you take that issue up with Catholic posters such as PeaceB. I merely stated the historic fact that the Great Schism officially took place in 1054.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
I suggest you take that issue up with Catholic posters such as PeaceB. I merely stated the historic fact that the Great Schism officially took place in 1054.
Peace B isn't saying that the Church fell away in 1054. You are. Therefore you are the one to answer the question of specifically how, aka what was taught before 1054 that was no longer taught after 1054, or what heretical doctrine was taught in Orthodoxy after 1054 that was not taught before.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
The standard anti-Catholic answer to that question is with Constantine. But an overview of church history, especially the ante-Nicene fathers (before he was even born) show that claim to be totally false.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies:
#1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
It seems to me that any person from a church without the Mass or a belief in the Real Presence would need to argue that the church went apostate from the early 2nd century.

I have trouble understanding how they acccept her tradition concerning the contents of the canon of the NT, while rejecting most everything else that she held at the time that she canonized the books upon which their faith is based.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Peace B isn't saying that the Church fell away in 1054. You are. Therefore you are the one to answer the question of specifically how, aka what was taught before 1054 that was no longer taught after 1054, or what heretical doctrine was taught in Orthodoxy after 1054 that was not taught before.

Since PeaceB and yourself appear to be ignorant of the Great Schism, I will point you to a nice Wikipedia site wherein you can discover the differences that led up to that event. What resulted were two branches of Christianity which remain at odds with each other, both maintaining that theirs is the unaltered and true faith and that the other is not.

East–West Schism - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Since PeaceB and yourself appear to be ignorant of the Great Schism, I will point you to a nice Wikipedia site wherein you can discover the differences that led up to that event. What resulted were two branches of Christianity which remain at odds with each other, both maintaining that theirs is the unaltered and true faith and that the other is not.

East–West Schism - Wikipedia
Must you really resort to such tactics? Of course we are aware of the Schism.

But none of that changes the plain truth that whatever church existed before the Schism, it most certainly was not Protestant, and held beliefs that directly contradict Protestantism.

That is why we asked you to specify when that church stopped teaching right doctrine, and you refused to answer the question. To answer the question is to admit that your church has no continuity of belief with the Church that Jesus built.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,977
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,232.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I suggest you take that issue up with Catholic posters such as PeaceB. I merely stated the historic fact that the Great Schism officially took place in 1054.
I'm asking you, because you made the claim that there was "one Church which was universal (catholic) and orthodox (holding to right doctrine)" up until the schism, and that after the schism neither was universal and orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I'm asking you, because you made the claim that there was "one Church which was universal (catholic) and orthodox (holding to right doctrine)" up until the schism, and that after the schism neither was universal and orthodox.

That is almost accurate. What I have asserted is the historic fact that in 1054 the Great Schism took place. Thus far, nobody has contested that fact.

Following the Great Schism one branch of Christianity chose the title, Catholic, claiming to be the one, undivided Church (and thus denying that claim for the other branch). The other branch became known as Orthodox because of its claims to correct doctrine (thus denying that claim to the Catholic branch).

If, in actual fact, there had been no division at that time then there would not be two branches, would there? Neither can claim to be catholic without denying the validity of the other. Nor can either claim to be orthodox without denying the validity of that claim to the other.

Thus matters stand to this day.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Must you really resort to such tactics? Of course we are aware of the Schism.

But none of that changes the plain truth that whatever church existed before the Schism, it most certainly was not Protestant, and held beliefs that directly contradict Protestantism.

That is why we asked you to specify when that church stopped teaching right doctrine, and you refused to answer the question. To answer the question is to admit that your church has no continuity of belief with the Church that Jesus built.

I do not recall introducing the Protestant Reformation, which occurred much later than the Great Schism, into my assertion. If I have done so, please point it out to me.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Who needs church history when you have the words of life? We should be rejoicing. Amen?
Unless you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture, history should be of some use to you in understanding the intended meaning of the text. The Church existed before the New Testament, as you may recall.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Unless you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture, history should be of some use to you in understanding the intended meaning of the text. The Church existed before the New Testament, as you may recall.
Jesus didnt give us a long list of historical writing to observe, he instead gave us rest and liberty from such things. Your Church history isnt needed to follow Christ.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Jesus didnt give us a long list of historical writing to observe, he instead gave us rest and liberty from such things. Your Church history isnt needed to follow Christ.
Then we don't need schools either.:scratch:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Jesus didnt give us a long list of historical writing to observe, he instead gave us rest and liberty from such things. Your Church history isnt needed to follow Christ.
Nobody here has asserted that church history is needed to follow Christ. There are plenty of people in history who have followed Christ without Sacred Scripture itself (e.g. the Christian communities that existed before the Bible), so naturally a study of church history is not a prerequisite to following our Lord.

Are you of the opinion that in your attempt to follow our Lord, nothing is of use to you except for Sacred Scripture?

Church history can be of use to you in your quest to follow the Lord, as can many other things, such as leaving your home and going to church on Sunday to physically worship alongside other Christians. Would you also not go to church on Sunday under the same rationale?

You seem to have an aversion to studying church history, but please correct me if I am wrong. What is wrong with studying history, in your view? What are the reasons for your aversion?
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nobody here has asserted that church history is needed to follow Christ. There are plenty of people in history who have followed Christ without Sacred Scripture itself (e.g. the Christian communities that existed before the Bible), so naturally a study of church history is not a prerequisite to following our Lord.

Are you of the opinion that in your attempt to follow our Lord, nothing is of use to you except for Sacred Scripture?

Church history can be of use to you in your quest to follow the Lord, as can many other things, such as leaving your home and going to church on Sunday to physically worship alongside other Christians. Would you also not go to church on Sunday under the same rationale?

You seem to have an aversion to studying church history, but please correct me if I am wrong. What is wrong with studying history, in your view? What are the reasons for your aversion?
I would not trust historical records because they are often bias.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I would not trust historical records because they are often bias.
That's fine, W2L, nobody expects you take an interest in church history. But you have no right to criticize the devotions and practices of the Church before the list of biblical books were fully realized.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.