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

[Fidelibus]

Truthfully, there are lots of charts showing these lineages and I have a number of them in my files and books, but as for a tidy internet website, here's one from an American branch that is particularly detailed. It should be noted that every bishop in the world, no matter what his communion or denomination, has many lines of succession.

Thanks Albion for your responce. I went to the web-site you provided, (Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite) and must say, with my failing eye site, I was struggling to read the very small print. Although, with the help of a magnifying glass, I was able to decipher some of the lineage list. What I failed to see within this list was any mention of the founder of the Anglican Church.... Henry the VIII..... who, that I would hope you'd agree, was "not" an ordained bishop. With that being said, and what my studies have shown me....history is what it is....Anglican bishops lost the power to validly ordain men to the priesthood.... and also to the episcopacy during the reign of Henry’s son, King Edward VI and therefore lost apostolic succession.


Surely Albion, you are aware of the "Apostolicae Curae" by Pope Leo XIII on the Nullity of Anglican Orders, right? For those that are not aware, see: http:www.cin.org/users/james/files/a-orders.htm

As a former Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Baptist, non-denominational, ect. Albion, Cardinal John Henry Newman's words.... "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ring so true to me, following my conversion to the Catholic faith. Like Cardinal Newman, I also tried to disprove the Catholic claim to be the one true church established by Christ. However, Like him, my studies in Early Church history found my beliefs to be wrong and therefore I could no longer remain Protestant. Thanks be to God!

 

[Albion]

Thanks Albion for your responce. I went to the web-site you provided, (Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite) and must say, with my failing eye site, I was struggling to read the very small print.

Ouch. Don't you have somewhere on the computer where you can just click and increase the size of the print? That's what I was counting on. But I have to say that I did not use several other listings from other churches or bishops because, frankly, of poor web design.

Although, with the help of a magnifying glass, I was able to decipher some of the lineage list. What I failed to see within this list was any mention of the founder of the Anglican Church.... Henry the VIII.....

And now you know that Henry did not found a new church.

Yes, I was taught the same thing when I was in Catholic school, but Henry didn't start any new line of bishops. The existing church just continued on, albeit with him having reasserted the historic independence of the English church from the oversight of the Pope.

who, that I would hope you'd agree, was "not" an ordained bishop.

Nope. No one has ever claimed he was, Henry included. Nor did he ever ordain anyone.

With that being said, and what my studies have shown me....history is what it is....Anglican bishops lost the power to validly ordain men to the priesthood!

So...was your question to me merely a foot in the door for berating my church? You asked about lists of Apostolic Succession. Anglicans and Lutherans and some other Protestants have them, completely unbroken.

But of course, the Catholic Church (or some other one, in theory) can always just say "No. We do not recognize those. We recognize our own since we think we are the only real church." That doesn't prove a thing about other churches having Apostolic Succession.

And as for Leo's Apostolicae Curae, it was strictly a political move on the Vatican's part, along with the proclamation of the new doctrine of Papal Infallibility that came along at about the same time. The rite of ordination Leo questioned was the same as used by bishops in England prior to the Reformation. Of course, the RCC recognizes those.

More important, Leo's judgment was made against part of the Anglican lineage, but Anglican bishops since are also able to trace their Apostolic Succession through Old Catholic or Eastern bishops whose Apostolic Succession is recognized by Rome. In other words, Apostolicae Curea is a dead issue, whether or not it ever was anything else, and most Catholic theologians today will admit this.

 

[Fidelibus]

And now you know that Henry did not found a new church.

But he (Henry VIII) did reject communion with the Catholic Church during his reign from 1509-1547 would you not agree?

Yes, I was taught the same thing when I was in Catholic school, but Henry didn't start any new line of bishops.

Yes, I would agree that the first bishops of the new Anglican church were all former Catholic bishops. What the question is though,,,,What were these Catholic turned Anglican bishops doing when they stood inside the former Catholic churches and cathedrals of England and ordained new clergy for the Anglican church? This is the crux of the matter. If they genuinly intended to do what they always been doing during Catholic ordination, and used the same ritual, one can only conclude that they ordained "Anglican" clergy who were in fact Catholic Priests. However, on the other hand, if they truly intended a full break from Rome/the Pope in the sacramental sense, (or in other words) denying the institution of the clergy as the Catholic Church understands it, and desiring instead to create something new and different...... then they did not effect valid ordinations. So what it all comes down to Albion, is that the clergy, priests and bishops professedly ordained were not really ordained at all, this means that once the original ex-Catholic bishops died out, the new Anglican clergy were not valid clerics and Apostolic Succession was broken.

The existing church just continued on, albeit with him having reasserted the historic independence of the English church from the oversight of the Pope.

I would agree that In the summer of 1534 Henry VIII wanted to be sure that his subjects knew that Papal supremacy had been replaced by royal supremacy. Now as for "The existing church just carried on." Are you sure about that? History shows he ordered all parish priests to erase all references to the Pope from the prayer books. All preachers were told that their parishioners must be left in no doubt that the King, and only the King, was Head of the Church.

Nope. No one has ever claimed he was, Henry included. Nor did he ever ordain anyone.

Well, in December of 1533, he issued an order that stated that the Pope had no more authority in England than any other bishop, and from now on he would be referred to as the Bishop of Rome. Also in early 1534, The Act in Absolute Restraint of Appeals was ordered where he (Henry) was declared to be, next to Christ, the only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England. It also laid down that all future abbots and bishops were to be chosen for election by the King.

So...was your question to me merely a foot in the door for berating my church?

Not at all, cause I know first hand how it feels when the Catholic Church is constantly berated. I apologize if it seemed I was.

You asked about lists of Apostolic Succession. Anglicans and Lutherans and some other Protestants have them, completely unbroken.

Sorry, but I still disagree as I have shown above.

But of course, the Catholic Church (or some other one, in theory) can always just say "No. We do not recognize those. We recognize our own since we think we are the only real church." That doesn't prove a thing about other churches having Apostolic Succession.

You are incorrect Albion, The Catholic Church accepts the validity of the bishops in the Orthodox Church, who can trace their succession right back to the Apostle St. Andrew.

(with the help of Catholic.com/canonlawmadeeasy.com)

 

[Albion]

But he (Henry VIII) did reject communion with the Catholic Church during his reign from 1509-1547 would you not agree?

Actually, that was not finally settled until Pope Pius V broke off relations by his bull of 1570 ("Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us [though unequal to such a burden] upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ") and called upon all Englishmen who were in the churches then but loyal to the Papacy to come out and form their own chapels. That remains the situation to this day.

Yes, I would agree that the first bishops of the new Anglican church were all former Catholic bishops. What the question is though,,,,What were these Catholic turned Anglican bishops doing when they stood inside the former Catholic churches and cathedrals of England and ordained new clergy for the Anglican church?

First, they weren't standing in formerly Catholic churches. These were the same churches and, by law, the Church of England is the Catholic church in England.

They were continuing the succession of the church in England which dated back to the planting of Christianity in the British Isles in the first century. (I suppose there are other ways of answering a "what were they doing?" kind of question, but I think this is what you are getting at).

You are incorrect Albion, The Catholic Church accepts the validity of the bishops in the Orthodox Church, who can trace their succession right back to the Apostle St. Andrew.

I did not say that she doesn't, Fidelibus. The RCC also recognizes the orders of the Old Catholic Churches.

The point was that any church with bishops and Apostolic Succession can refuse to recognize the orders/succession of some other church just as easily as it can recognize them, but that decision doesn't mean anything about whether or not the Apostolic Succession is valid. It just means that church #1 refuses to recognize the succession of church #2 and for any reason, true or not, that it chooses.

 

[victorinus]

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?

loving your neighbor is important -
studying history is not

 

[kepha31]

Whether he retains communion with Rome or not, a Catholic bishop always retains the sacramental power to ordain new priests and consecrate more bishops. (Code of Canon Law 1012) A renegade bishop can ordain new bishops and they ordain more bishops...etc. and while these episcopal ordinations are obviously illicit since the Pope has not approved them, they are nonetheless valid. The Pope can command a particular bishop not to do this, of course, but if that bishop willfully chooses to disobey, there is nothing the Pope can do to stop him!

 

[kepha31]

Actually, that was not finally settled until Pope Pius V broke off relations by his bull of 1570 ("Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us [though unequal to such a burden] upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ") and called upon all Englishmen who were in the churches then but loyal to the Papacy to come out and form their own chapels. That remains the situation to this day.

Bull. That's what you say but it is not what the bull says. The penalty for denying that Henry VIII was the Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England was death. KH8 became the Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England by an act of parliament.
John Stoddard gives an account of Henry VIII:

. . . the murderer of two wives . . . and the executioner of many of the noblest Englishmen of the time, who had the conscience and the courage to oppose him. Among these were the venerable Bishop Fisher . . . and Sir Thomas More, one of the most distinguished men of his century . . .
When Henry began his persecution, there were about 1,000 Dominican monks in Ireland, only four of whom survived when Elizabeth came to the throne thirty years later. Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Protestant Inquisition: "Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution​

First, they weren't standing in formerly Catholic churches. These were the same churches and, by law, the Church of England is the Catholic church in England.

First, they were standing in stolen Catholic churches, and you missed the point of Fid's question. Such ordinations as he described are illicit from the get go.

They were continuing the succession of the church in England which dated back to the planting of Christianity in the British Isles in the first century. (I suppose there are other ways of answering a "what were they doing?" kind of question, but I think this is what you are getting at).

Back in the first century it was one church. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist. Whoever these first missionaries were to the Isles, they were Catholic; Peter and/or Linus as Pope. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist. No Catholic bishops, no Church. Anglican distinctives were non existent at this time, while 1st century Catholic distinctives are plainly evident in the ECF, and you guys want to claim them for yourselves?

I did not say that she doesn't, Fidelibus. The RCC also recognizes the orders of the Old Catholic Churches.

Wrong. All their liturgies are illegal. We are to avoid them.
What is the “Old Catholic Church”?

The point was that any church with bishops and Apostolic Succession can refuse to recognize the orders/succession of some other church just as easily as it can recognize them, but that decision doesn't mean anything about whether or not the Apostolic Succession is valid. It just means that church #1 refuses to recognize the succession of church #2 and for any reason, true or not, that it chooses.

Truth is objective, it has nothing to do with being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. Ephesians 4:14, James 1:6

 

[kepha31]

I hope you don't think that's what I'm doing here...
Do you believe someone can be saved if they do not have an interest in the history is what I"m asking I guess.

I met a priest/psychiatrist who gave catechism classes to a severely retarded girl with an I.Q. of 25. All her theology amounted to 3 words. "JESUS LOVES ME!!!" she shouted, with great joy. That completed her classes, and she went on to receive baptism, or confirmation, I can't remember which. That was 40 years ago and the incident has stuck with me ever since.

BTW, Fr. Inaeo is in an order (Congregation of the Holy Cross) , not a diocesan.

 

[kepha31]

BENEDICT XVI

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS

PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS
ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION
WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

[thecolorsblend]

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 think it's necessary to study Church history to be Catholic.

Still, the expression goes that to be steeped in Church history is to start becoming Catholic. Or become less Protestant at any rate.

Certainly that was true in my case. Discovering the writings of the Church Fathers forced me to reconsider pretty much everything. From apostolic succession to the Real Presence to Our Lady's perpetual virginity, a lot of things which I'd assumed the Catholic Church made up out of whole cloth turned out to be very old doctrines.

The amount of doctrines about which traditional Christians (whether they're Eastern Orthodox, Catholic or whatever else) all agree in contrast to American mainline Protestantism should be food for thought all by itself in my opinion.

EDIT- To nuance my answer a bit more, I would emphasize that studying history isn't a prerequisite to becoming/being Catholic. It was helpful to me but my path might not be someone else's path. Still, what I've observed is that the Catholic Church is uniquely qualified to give people exactly what they need.

Some people don't have interest in history. Maybe they've made mistakes in life and need mercy. They need to know that they can be forgiven. The Church can do that.

And let's be realistic, some people need to be clipped upside the head and told to get their act together. The Church can do that.

Some people need to have their intellects fed with books or other intellectual pursuits. Trust me, the Church can do that.

With all due respect, other people might be a little, um, slow. They just need the sacraments. The Church can do that.

So no, studying history (or even having an interest in history) is not necessary to be Catholic. Whatever somebody needs, the Church is ready, willing, able and eager to give it to them.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't think it's necessary to study Church history to be Catholic.

Still, the expression goes that to be steeped in Church history is to start becoming Catholic. Or become less Protestant at any rate.

Certainly that was true in my case. Discovering the writings of the Church Fathers forced me to reconsider pretty much everything. From apostolic succession to the Real Presence to Our Lady's perpetual virginity, a lot of things which I'd assumed the Catholic Church made up out of whole cloth turned out to be very old doctrines.

The amount of doctrines about which traditional Christians (whether they're Eastern Orthodox, Catholic or whatever else) all agree in contrast to American mainline Protestantism should be food for thought all by itself in my opinion.

EDIT- To nuance my answer a bit more, I would emphasize that studying history isn't a prerequisite to becoming/being Catholic. It was helpful to me but my path might not be someone else's path. Still, what I've observed is that the Catholic Church is uniquely qualified to give people exactly what they need.

Some people don't have interest in history. Maybe they've made mistakes in life and need mercy. They need to know that they can be forgiven. The Church can do that.

And let's be realistic, some people need to be clipped upside the head and told to get their act together. The Church can do that.

Some people need to have their intellects fed with books or other intellectual pursuits. Trust me, the Church can do that.

With all due respect, other people might be a little, um, slow. They just need the sacraments. The Church can do that.

So no, studying history (or even having an interest in history) is not necessary to be Catholic. Whatever somebody needs, the Church is ready, willing, able and eager to give it to them.

The great thing about the Early Church Fathers and their writings is that there is plenty there to base almost any doctrine on. If one chooses to limit oneself to a particular denomination's selective readings of the ECF's then one may, indeed, be swayed to join that denomination.

 

[kepha31]

The great thing about the Early Church Fathers and their writings is that there is plenty there to base almost any doctrine on.

That's not how ECF's writings work. They are not the Magisterium, who reflects on the ECF for years. sometimes centuries. Not everything the ECF wrote was accepted by the Magisterium. Peter, the Apostles and elders were the Magisterium at the Council of Jerusalem.

If one chooses to limit oneself to a particular denomination's selective readings of the ECF's then one may, indeed, be swayed to join that denomination.

Denominations don't read any ECF. Generally, the ECF are not part of the Catholic Liturgy, the Bible is. The point is, many scholars and ministers who study the ECF are prompted to examine themselves and see if they are being called. Whatever history can teach us, this much is certain, authentic Christian history is not Protestantism. Writing early church history based on Bible alone is impossible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's not how ECF's writings work. They are not the Magisterium, who reflects on the ECF for years. sometimes centuries. Not everything the ECF wrote was accepted by the Magisterium. Peter, the Apostles and elders were the Magisterium at the Council of Jerusalem. Denominations don't read any ECF. Generally, the ECF are not part of the Catholic Liturgy, the Bible is. The point is, many scholars and ministers who study the ECF are prompted to examine themselves and see if they are being called. Whatever history can teach us, this much is certain, authentic Christian history is not Protestantism. Writing early church history based on Bible alone is impossible.

Thank you for making my point. Depending upon the denomination's handling of the writings of the ECFs a very solid argument can be established for the veracity of that particular denomination. Trust me, there are several denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox churches which have developed truly outstanding interpretations of the writings of the ECFs which establish their legitimacy beyond any reasonable doubt.

Writing first-century Christian history using anything other than the Bible is absurd.

 

[prodromos]

Writing first-century Christian history using anything other than the Bible is absurd

Huh?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Huh?

As everyone knows, the prima faciae evidence for the Christianity of the first century is the Bible, is it not?

 

[prodromos]

As everyone knows, the prima faciae evidence for the Christianity of the first century is the Bible, is it not?

I can't even tell what it is you want to argue. First you state that 1st century Christian history is exclusively determined from the Bible and now you've changed to a Latin term I'm not too familiar with. Either way, there is much more evidence than just the Bible.

 

[kepha31]

Thank you for making my point. Depending upon the denomination's handling of the writings of the ECFs a very solid argument can be established for the veracity of that particular denomination. Trust me, there are several denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox churches which have developed truly outstanding interpretations of the writings of the ECFs which establish their legitimacy beyond any reasonable doubt.

Writing first-century Christian history using anything other than the Bible is absurd.

No, it's impossible. Efforts to do so has tragic consequences. Each bizarre cult has mangled the facts of history beyond recognition, and Protestants are forced to write a history of their own to make it fit their preconceptions. Where does the Bible mention the crucifixion of Peter, or the beheading of Paul, or the martyrdom of Ignatius?
Where does the Bible tell us who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)
Why isn't the Council of Council of Laodicea (c. 360) that affirmed much of the canon, not mentioned in the final agreed on books 37 years later? If you can draw up a 1st century history based on the Bible alone, you have nothing but speculation to fill in the gaps. You either invent it or look to the most detailed historical record available, the ECF.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

Historian Eamon Duffy (not Catholic) suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority.

He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.​

AUTHORITY OF THE FIRST POPES
Many Protestants deny the hard facts of history, reject educated Protestants and make up all kinds of nonsense. "Peter wasn't the first Pope!!!!" Pope is not in the Bible but he is the anti-Christ!!! There was no pope until the 4th century!!! and so on and so forth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, it's impossible. Efforts to do so has tragic consequences. Each bizarre cult has mangled the facts of history beyond recognition, and Protestants are forced to write a history of their own to make it fit their preconceptions. Where does the Bible mention the crucifixion of Peter, or the beheading of Paul, or the martyrdom of Ignatius?
Where does the Bible tell us who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)
Why isn't the Council of Council of Laodicea (c. 360) that affirmed much of the canon, not mentioned in the final agreed on books 37 years later? If you can draw up a 1st century history based on the Bible alone, you have nothing but speculation to fill in the gaps. You either invent it or look to the most detailed historical record available, the ECF.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

Historian Eamon Duffy (not Catholic) suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority.

He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.​

AUTHORITY OF THE FIRST POPES
Many Protestants deny the hard facts of history, reject educated Protestants and make up all kinds of nonsense. "Peter wasn't the first Pope!!!!" Pope is not in the Bible but he is the anti-Christ!!! There was no pope until the 4th century!!! and so on and so forth.

The difficulty in determining the history of the first-century church is that one either depends upon a document (New Testament) which not only is recognized by all orthodox Christian bodies as the Word of God and which has, by far and away, the largest body of manuscripts surviving from that era of history - or one depends on later writers and commentators who were not alive in the first century and only related various ideas regarding the first century church, some of which agree with the New Testament, and many of which do not.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can't even tell what it is you want to argue. First you state that 1st century Christian history is exclusively determined from the Bible and now you've changed to a Latin term I'm not too familiar with. Either way, there is much more evidence than just the Bible.

I am not arguing anything. I merely responded to the assertion made by Kepha regarding the necessity of depending upon his denomination's Magisterium for early church history. I would be quite surprised if you agree with his assertion. My point was that not everybody agrees with his denomination's reading of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[kepha31]

The difficulty in determining the history of the first-century church is that one either depends upon a document (New Testament) which not only is recognized by all orthodox Christian bodies as the Word of God and which has, by far and away, the largest body of manuscripts surviving from that era of history - or one depends on later writers and commentators who were not alive in the first century and only related various ideas regarding the first century church, some of which agree with the New Testament, and many of which do not.

You are missing the point. ECF writings are not on par with Scripture, they never have been. But it was through the ECF that gave us the Bible in the first place. I've seen a fair share of Protestant Bible origin fantasies with no regard for the facts.

It is a Protestant man made tradition to reduce the ECF to the point of insignificance, because none of them were Protestant.
John the Apostle was alive when Clement was the 4th Pope.