• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

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

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by friend of, Jul 27, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PeaceB

    PeaceB Well-Known Member

    +656
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    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.
     
  2. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,672
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    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.
     
  3. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +583
    Catholic
    In Relationship
  4. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,713
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  5. Open Heart

    Open Heart Well-Known Member

    +4,330
    United States
    Seeker
    Celibate
    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.
     
  6. PeaceB

    PeaceB Well-Known Member

    +656
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    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.
     
  7. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,713
    Non-Denom
    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
     
  8. PeaceB

    PeaceB Well-Known Member

    +656
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    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.
     
  9. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,672
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    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.
     
  10. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,713
    Non-Denom
    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: Sep 28, 2017
  11. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,713
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  12. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,871
    Christian
    Private
    Who needs church history when you have the words of life? We should be rejoicing. Amen?
     
  13. PeaceB

    PeaceB Well-Known Member

    +656
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    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.
     
  14. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,871
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  15. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +583
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Then we don't need schools either.:scratch:
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
  16. PeaceB

    PeaceB Well-Known Member

    +656
    United States
    Catholic
    Engaged
    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?
     
  17. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,871
    Christian
    Private
    huh?
     
  18. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,871
    Christian
    Private
    I would not trust historical records because they are often bias.
     
  19. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +583
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    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.
     
  20. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,871
    Christian
    Private
    Yes i do.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...