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

[thecolorsblend]

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.

There's more (a lot more, actually) to the early Church than is written in the New Testament. Heck, St. John himself even said that his gospel makes no attempt at including anything but a small fraction of Our Lord's actions and words.

Depending on who you trust, the New Testament was written over the course of about 70 years, tops. It may be less time than that but it isn't more. The "early Church" is reckoned from Pentecost until the legalization of Christianity in the empire. That works out to, what, over 300 years?

And you think a collection of letters written at the very beginning of that period is somehow sufficient for telling us about complex history???

I am not trying to be dismissive or insulting. But that's... frankly, it's just wrong. Depriving oneself of facts is plain wrong.

I can kind of see why a Protestant wouldn't want to consider much history prior to around the 16th century but ignoring the great majority of the early Church's existence is kind of ludicrous.

 

[thecolorsblend]

But it was through the ECF that gave us the Bible in the first place.

This is a point I don't think a lot of these Bible-only types stop to consider all that often. The Church wrote the New Testament, humanly speaking. The New Testament didn't give birth to the Church.

The Church gave birth to the New Testament.

 

[kepha31]

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

Yes, but the Bible is not the only source. You make a typical Protestant false dichotomy. The Bible paints historical portraits, not historical accounts, generally speaking.

 

[kepha31]

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.

I said no such thing. The Magisterium reflects on the ECF with care before making authoritive rulings, with Scripture as the primary source. You seem to think the Magisterium infallibly interprets the ECF then rams it down our throats.
Anybody can come up with their own reading of the ECF. They are all available to the public. There is no copy write. But Catholic apologists have aright to defend against the twisted lies of James White, William Webster, Richard Bennett and legions of other carnival barkers.

You keep harping about different denominations having different views, pitting east against west. (BTW, they are not denominations) The east west schism is a red herring. At least we acknowledge their value whereas most Protestants, including ministers, have never read them.

You either recognize the ECF as contributors to the development of doctrine, or keep playing games with history.

 

[kepha31]

The world's first Catholic Early Church & doctrine search engine.The early church handled evangelization at the dawn of Christianity and they are just as effective today.

Catholic Force - Patristics & Apologetics

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is no copy write. But Catholic apologists have aright to defend against the twisted lies of James White, William Webster, Richard Bennett and legions of other carnival barkers.

What these types who ignore actual historical investigation avoid is understanding how potent Christianity was.

As you probably know, the ancient world operated on a paradigm of shame vs. honor. In the west today it's about guilt. But in a shame/honor society, you can do anything and as long as you don't get caught, there's no real stigma attached to you.

Christianity challenged that. It isn't enough not to get caught doing something wrong. You have to not do it at all. Our Lord says that merely thinking about something is as bad as the act itself. This was absolutely foreign to the ancients.

But more than that, the sacrament of Confession would've been abhorrent to them. They have to confess to a priest to doing something wrong.. even if (especially if) they did it without getting caught? Such was unthinkable by ancient standards. Why, confessing to something opens the penitent up to shame and scorn!

In rejecting actual historical investigation, Protestants aren't just avoiding testimony of doctrines they reject. They're missing the true efficacy and power of God's work. And it's just sad, you know?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If you believe God has been active the last 1900 years then it is essential to know what he has done, specifically what he does done through his body the church. There's no excuse not to care about how God has worked through history unless one is a restorationist and believes in a universal ancient apostasy.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

I do find it rather annoying when people such as yourself butt into my conversations. If you have been following my posts, my initial post was to thecolorsblend who posted a rather stirring testimony concerning the Catholic rendition of ECF writings as the pivotal source for his conversion to Catholicism. He very obviously holds this rendition in exceedingly high regard, perhaps as high as the New Testament itself, but I cannot speak for him and trust that if he is interested he will speak for himself.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What these types who ignore actual historical investigation avoid is understanding how potent Christianity was.

As you probably know, the ancient world operated on a paradigm of shame vs. honor. In the west today it's about guilt. But in a shame/honor society, you can do anything and as long as you don't get caught, there's no real stigma attached to you.

Christianity challenged that. It isn't enough not to get caught doing something wrong. You have to not do it at all. Our Lord says that merely thinking about something is as bad as the act itself. This was absolutely foreign to the ancients.

But more than that, the sacrament of Confession would've been abhorrent to them. They have to confess to a priest to doing something wrong.. even if (especially if) they did it without getting caught? Such was unthinkable by ancient standards. Why, confessing to something opens the penitent up to shame and scorn!

In rejecting actual historical investigation, Protestants aren't just avoiding testimony of doctrines they reject. They're missing the true efficacy and power of God's work. And it's just sad, you know?

No, I really don't know, nor do I find any reason to be sad.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you believe God has been active the last 1900 years then it is essential to know what he has done, specifically what he does done through his body the church. There's no excuse not to care about how God has worked through history unless one is a restorationist and believes in a universal ancient apostasy.

Quite true. However, one must determine some form of lens through which to view history. There are many lenses, as I am sure you know. There is the Catholic lens which is not your lens and I would be quite amazed if you believe them to be identical.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I do find it rather annoying when people such as yourself butt into my conversations. If you have been following my posts, my initial post was to thecolorsblend who posted a rather stirring testimony concerning the Catholic rendition of ECF writings as the pivotal source for his conversion to Catholicism. He very obviously holds this rendition in exceedingly high regard, perhaps as high as the New Testament itself, but I cannot speak for him and trust that if he is interested he will speak for himself.

With respect, I don't think there's any such thing as a private conversation on CF. Not even with PM's.

As to my views of the Church Fathers, no I doubt regard their writings as canonical.

But they are informative as to what the early Church believed. I don't get where comparing their non-canonical writings to the New Testament is coming from, tbh.

 

[bbbbbbb]

With respect, I don't think there's any such thing as a private conversation on CF. Not even with PM's.

As to my views of the Church Fathers, no I doubt regard their writings as canonical.

But they are informative as to what the early Church believed. I don't get where comparing their non-canonical writings to the New Testament is coming from, tbh.

Thank you for your prompt response. Perhaps your second paragraph was mistyped as it did not read clearly to me.

My question to you is whether or not you would have converted to Catholicism without reading the Catholic rendition of the ECF's. From the earlier post they appeared to me to be the primary cause for your conversion. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[prodromos]

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.

Keph's assertion was that, "Writing early church history based on Bible alone is impossible", which I agree with. That is the assertion you responded to.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Keph's assertion was that, "Writing early church history based on Bible alone is impossible", which I agree with. That is the assertion you responded to.

Please read carefully. Is it all possible to write the history of the first-century church without the Bible? Of what value are the writings of individuals several centuries after the fact in relation to eyewitness accounts?

 

[prodromos]

Please read carefully. Is it all possible to write the history of the first-century church without the Bible?

That wasn't his assertion. Where did he even hint at the suggestion the Bible be excluded as a source? I'm not the one who needs to read carefully.

Of what value are the writings of individuals several centuries after the fact in relation to eyewitness accounts?

Who's talking several centuries? There is plenty of material in the 1st two centuries in written works and archeological finds which paint a much more detailed picture of the early Church, much of which would be missing if the Bible was your only source. No historian worth his salt wouldsupporr your view.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Thank you for your prompt response. Perhaps your second paragraph was mistyped as it did not read clearly to me.

My question to you is whether or not you would have converted to Catholicism without reading the Catholic rendition of the ECF's. From the earlier post they appeared to me to be the primary cause for your conversion. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

The reasons for my conversion mostly came down to theology. The Church's theology was far stronger than I originally thought.

The initial impetus for that, however, began with the Church Fathers. Specifically it was the letter from St. Ignatius to the Smyrnians. In it, (and I'm paraphrasing) he identified anyone who didn't recognize the Eucharist as the Body and the Blood as heretics.

Ignatius was either a student of St. John or else a student of St. John's student. It's very close to St. John either way. So why did Ignatius believe that way?

That single comment is what started the ball rolling. The Church Fathers were the starting point.

So I suppose if I hadn't found those writing I might not have converted. But it's unknown and unknowable since I did convert.

 

[kepha31]

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.​

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The reasons for my conversion mostly came down to theology. The Church's theology was far stronger than I originally thought.

The initial impetus for that, however, began with the Church Fathers. Specifically it was the letter from St. Ignatius to the Smyrnians. In it, (and I'm paraphrasing) he identified anyone who didn't recognize the Eucharist as the Body and the Blood as heretics.

Ignatius was either a student of St. John or else a student of St. John's student. It's very close to St. John either way. So why did Ignatius believe that way?

That single comment is what started the ball rolling. The Church Fathers were the starting point.

So I suppose if I hadn't found those writing I might not have converted. But it's unknown and unknowable since I did convert.

Thank you. My personal belief is hereby strengthened that most individuals who convert to Catholicism do not do it simply by reading the Bible. The Bible, in and of itself, would be insufficient, although perhaps helpful, in leading to this decision.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Thank you. My personal belief is hereby strengthened that most individuals who convert to Catholicism do not do it simply by reading the Bible. The Bible, in and of itself, would be insufficient, although perhaps helpful, in leading to this decision.

With respect, and putting aside other factors with which I had to contend, I don't see the significance of that insight.

Catholicism is one brand among many in the Christian marketplace, as it were. It would be no more and no less unusual for an ignorant outsider to read the scriptures and decide on Catholicism than it would be to decide on the Methodists or Baptists or whoever.

 

[bbbbbbb]

With respect, and putting aside other factors with which I had to contend, I don't see the significance of that insight.

Catholicism is one brand among many in the Christian marketplace, as it were. It would be no more and no less unusual for an ignorant outsider to read the scriptures and decide on Catholicism than it would be to decide on the Methodists or Baptists or whoever.

I quite agree with you. Most church members choose their denominations based on other factors than the Bible. For example, I know many Unitarians who are members of that particular denomination for social reasons only. Theology played no part in their decision, nor was it encouraged at all.

Those who choose to affiliate with Traditional denominations such as the Catholic Church seem to be primarily persuaded by historical factors such as the writings of the ECFs.