how to read church history

[J3thekingofking]

history can be bias and can be thwarted, so how does one read history and be convinced? says for the reformation, you watch documentary by the protestant of course you'll be convinced or presented it's a positive thing; contrast to documentary prepared by the roman catholic.

 

[Tone]

This is true.

And then there's other believers in Messiah that are not of that branch (R.C. to Protestant) at all.

 

[Palmfever]

It's the winners that write history.

 

[Athanasius377]

history can be bias and can be thwarted, so how does one read history and be convinced? says for the reformation, you watch documentary by the protestant of course you'll be convinced or presented it's a positive thing; contrast to documentary prepared by the roman catholic.

If you are looking to learn more about church history the best text I can recommend is Jaroslav Pelikan's 5 volume "The Christian Tradition". Its probably the best and balanced work on church history that while not an overly easy read is accessible to the average layman with a bit of work. And it really should be in every christian's library IMO.

Also, if some makes a claim force them to back it up with evidence and proper citations. Church history is massive and often messy so make sure the evidence fits the argument. Is what is being cited appropriate to the point that is being made? Is it true or a forgery? Is there more than one version of the same document? Forgeries occur in history far more than you think. And if you ever hear, "the early church fathers say", then that person doesn't have a clue about what they are talking about. Do all of this and decide for yourself if the claims of either position are true.

 

[Albion]

history can be bias and can be thwarted, so how does one read history and be convinced? says for the reformation, you watch documentary by the protestant of course you'll be convinced or presented it's a positive thing; contrast to documentary prepared by the roman catholic.

As with other controversial topics, it is necessary to take in the claims made by all sides and then to run down some of the details for yourself when a verification is necessary. Most of the time, a more thorough study of the subject will leave you with a strong conviction about which side was the closest to the truth.

But even then, we have to realize that some issues in history are not cut and dried but instead are right or wrong depending on what is being emphasized. For example, it is very difficult to be objective about Luther's stance for the simple reason that the Catholic Church of its day was in desperate need of reform (that is undeniable), but it may nevertheless be the case that the particular path taken by the reform when it occurred wasn't the right one. Or the best one. If so, that leads to the next difference of opinion as to what aspects of it were right and which were not and what standard we should use in order to decide.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It's the winners that write history.

That is not a true statement. The winners do make more copies of their writings.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As with other controversial topics, it is necessary to take in the claims made by all sides and then to run down some of the details for yourself when a verification is necessary. Most of the time, a more thorough study of the subject will leave you with a strong conviction about which side was the closest to the truth.

But even then, we have to realize that some issues in history are not cut and dried but instead are right or wrong depending on what is being emphasized. For example, it is very difficult to be objective about Luther's stance for the simple reason that the Catholic Church of its day was in desperate need of reform (that is undeniable), but it may nevertheless be the case that the particular path taken by the reform when it occurred wasn't the right one. Or the best one. If so, that leads to the next difference of opinion as to what aspects of it were right and which were not and what standard we should use in order to decide.

What is true is that every Church is always in need of reform, because men are fallen and never live up to the requirements Christ passed for us. So, it is true that the Catholic Church was in need of reformation. It's true every day.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

history can be bias and can be thwarted, so how does one read history and be convinced? says for the reformation, you watch documentary by the protestant of course you'll be convinced or presented it's a positive thing; contrast to documentary prepared by the roman catholic.

Hopefully the historian recognizes their own bias. I took a class on the Reformation at a Jesuit university, while I was still Lutheran. The priest and I became good friends and I remember that he said, "Luther was right about the need to reform and Rome was wrong."

 

[Root of Jesse]

I partially agree, in that the Church is always in need of reform. The Church is always in reform, too. The only thing Rome did wrong was to react to the charges too slowly. Luther was wrong because he expected quicker action, based only on his own testimony. For the record, the Church is often wrong. They forced Padre Pio into seclusion based on one report of a woman. They later righted the wrong. This is just one example.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I partially agree, in that the Church is always in need of reform. The Church is always in reform, too. The only thing Rome did wrong was to react to the charges too slowly. Luther was wrong because he expected quicker action, based only on his own testimony. For the record, the Church is often wrong. They forced Padre Pio into seclusion based on one report of a woman. They later righted the wrong. This is just one example.

Luther's push against indulgences of Tetzel really did impact the funds being raised for the St. Peter's. Luther was also a German arguing with the Italians so that didnt help much. They pretty much viewed the Germans as barbarians.

Until I took that class, I had not known about was the many reform movements going on prior to Luther. John Hus is probably the best known, but there were a few others, mainly outside of Italy. Unfortunately, those were ignored by the Italian dominated papal bureaucracy. One funny thing that just came to mind was that the priest, and I wish I could remember his name, said that if Luther had shown up in the 1300s, there would probably have been a Lutheran order within the Catholic church.

 

[J_B_]

What is true is that every Church is always in need of reform, because men are fallen and never live up to the requirements Christ passed for us. So, it is true that the Catholic Church was in need of reformation. It's true every day.

That's an admirable position. It was tough for me to swallow that the Lutheran church has also made some bad mistakes throughout history, but the pursuit of my history degree forced an honest reading of certain events.

The difficult balance is facing up to the mistake without people taking away the conclusion that your church is forever a lost cause. My wife's family came to the U.S. after WWII, and it is a constant irritation that the only German history Americans seem to know is the Nazis. Too many Americans think those things synonymous.

The flip side difficulty is conflating reformation with innovation.

 

[J_B_]

If you are looking to learn more about church history the best text I can recommend is Jaroslav Pelikan's 5 volume "The Christian Tradition".

I've enjoyed several of Pelikan's books, though he's considered a bit of a heretic among my fellow conservative Lutherans.

 

[Athanasius377]

I've enjoyed several of Pelikan's books, though he's considered a bit of a heretic among my fellow conservative Lutherans.

That's probably due to the fact Pelikan converted to Eastern Orthodoxy late in life.

 

[J_B_]

That's probably due to the fact Pelikan converted to Eastern Orthodoxy late in life.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg, is a matter of debate.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Luther's push against indulgences of Tetzel really did impact the funds being raised for the St. Peter's. Luther was also a German arguing with the Italians so that didnt help much. They pretty much viewed the Germans as barbarians.

Until I took that class, I had not known about was the many reform movements going on prior to Luther. John Hus is probably the best known, but there were a few others, mainly outside of Italy. Unfortunately, those were ignored by the Italian dominated papal bureaucracy. One funny thing that just came to mind was that the priest, and I wish I could remember his name, said that if Luther had shown up in the 1300s, there would probably have been a Lutheran order within the Catholic church.

I agree with your first sentence. What I'm saying is that Luther's beef was with Tetzel, not with the Vatican, so taking it up with Tetzel's superiors would have been the proper thing to do.

You're talking about a time in history when the curia was indeed more worried about temporal matters than spiritual, and you're probably right about a lowly monk being ignored by the Vatican. That's a nice supposition about a Lutheran order, but totally opinion. Luther was an Augustinian, though. Personally, Luther was right, but he went about his complaint the wrong way. One of the most saintly men I can think of is Padre Pio, who was barred from performing priestly duties because of politics. And I think that Rome is often wrong in the realm of temporal things. I think they should stick to the spiritual. However wherever you have two or more people, you also have politics. Even among the apostles...

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's an admirable position. It was tough for me to swallow that the Lutheran church has also made some bad mistakes throughout history, but the pursuit of my history degree forced an honest reading of certain events.

The difficult balance is facing up to the mistake without people taking away the conclusion that your church is forever a lost cause. My wife's family came to the U.S. after WWII, and it is a constant irritation that the only German history Americans seem to know is the Nazis. Too many Americans think those things synonymous.

The flip side difficulty is conflating reformation with innovation.

Completely so. The point of our faith is to follow Christ. I really don't like when the pope talks about things like climate and immigration, he's an expert in neither. And, for the record, I don't like anyone who is 'important', Stef Curry, Drew Brees, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, who presents an opinion as anything other than an opinion. I agreed with Drew Brees last summer about his stance on kneeling for the National Anthem, but I thought he was the wrong person, actually, he just had no authority, to say so. We should always interject "It's their opinion that..."

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[DragonFox91]

Learn both sides

Many times there won't be a clear-cut right or wrong, & it'll just be opinion.

 

[The Liturgist]

A major problem with some books on church history is they ignore or gloss over the ancient churches of the East - the various Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Russian Old Believers and Old Rite Orthodox, the Maronites, and the Church of the East, which at one time was geographically the largest in the world, stretching from Syria through Persia and Mesopotamia, across Central Asia and India, and reaching as far as Tibet, Mongolia and China. Unfortunately the evil Muslim warlord Tamerlane, who is sadly venerated as a national hero in Uzbekistan,* decided to commit genocide against them, and only those in modern day Iraq, Iran, and India survived.

*Compare Tamerlane with Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi, who killed everyone in Khartoum, including the heroic Christian General Charles Gordon, who delayed the massacre as long as possible, and ultimately opted to remain in the city rather than obey the orders of the British government to leave for the safety of the Lower Nile and London. His body was never recovered; Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi died mysteriously three months later, and is enshrined in an elaborate tomb, despite being arguably the first Islamic terrorist of modern times.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I think they should stick to the spiritual. However wherever you have two or more people, you also have politics. Even among the apostles...

Chuckles, one of my favorite quotes from the sci-fi show Babylon 5:
“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”

― J. Michael Straczynski

 

[The Liturgist]

Chuckles, one of my favorite quotes from the sci-fi show Babylon 5:
“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”

― J. Michael Straczynski

Awesome, nerd fistbump. Although I’m not a B5 man, I prefer DS9 due to the epic performance of Avery Brooks, who managed to be the only Trek Captain more awesome than Kirk, and also the space battles. Seeing fleets of Galaxy Class ships being blown up, its like what I always wanted to see on TNG, but never got to, because Reg Barclay would have a nervous breakdown and become addicted to holodecks/get attacked by some interdimensional eel in the transporter/turn into a giant spider and Deanna Troi would have to help him get in touch with his feelings, and let’s not even get started with some of the later Wesley Crusher episodes like The First Duty. Also, the Bajoran Religion was fascinating, and it was hilarious how most of Starfleet remained doctrinaire atheists despite the Bajoran religion being shown to be objectively true.