 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 03:17 pm |
|
This question keeps rolling around in my head (sort of like marbles!)  . I have spent 40 of my 63 years on this earth as a Christian, first in a Reformed Presbyterian Church, then Church of the Brethren for a brief time, then Full Gospel, and then a non-denominational mega-church .... throughout all that time, I do not believe I ever once heard an utterance about the Ancient Church, Early Church Fathers, or the true roots of Protestant Christianity. When it came to the Scriptural reference of Peter as "the Rock" ... it was always taken to mean Peter, the other Apostles, and all Christians who followed after them. There were brief, fleeting references to St. Augustine, and possibly a few other holy men who lived centuries ago, but only if they wrote a "nice poem" or if there was a "pretty statue" to put in one's yard ... you know, feeding the birds and all that. As I think of this, there is a part of me that really feels as though I, and many others, were kept in the dark .... intentionally? I'm not going to take a guess at that as I don't know anyone's heart, but I find it very, very, distressing to say the least. Thanks for listening to my mini-rant!
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
Annie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 718 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 03:20 pm |
|
Yes, it was intentional. It was done out of ignorance. Now we know better and should move on to the future and not look back, except for using what we have learned in the past to better the future.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
elfdream
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 12 |
| First Name: | Sharon | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Regular Baptist , Independant Baptist, Non denom to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 03:28 pm |
|
I remember once years ago the Baptist Church we were attending at the time did the film series of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict' and that was the first I had ever heard of St. Polycarp. I was fascinated by the idea that there was evidence of a 'real' person who actually knew St. John! That was the first I'd ever heard of them and they were simply called "Early Christians' and not "Early Church Fathers'. I thought we would learn more about him but I didn't learn any more about him until I started doing research on my own.
I'm sure these Pastors who go to seminary must learn about them...but somebody somewhere way back in the mists of time decided that it wasn't important to emphasis that material and the rest just followed suit. I don't think it was malicious..they just honestly believed it wasn't important for their congregations to study them.
____________________
How do you expect to arrive at the end of your own journey if you take the road to another man's city? How do you expect to reach your own perfection by leading someone else's life?
Thomas Merton
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 05:19 pm |
|
elfdream .... that's amazing that you're citing that series. My X-husband read that book and gave copies to several of his friends. And he was (and I assume still is) very anti-Catholic. I guess it's one of those things that can slide right passed your head if you're not in tune at all. Wow, this is amazing.
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
Abby, in today’s world, I cannot see this “1,500 year hole” as an intentional, malicious withholding of information. It just never occurs to anyone (or hardly anyone) that the historical development of Christianity could ever have any bearing on their own faith. The reason is sola scriptura. If that book is all one needs to establish faith and doctrine, then there is no reason to delve into the past and trace lineage.
David
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 07:14 pm |
|
I think the reason we see this frequent neglect in Protestant circles is because of the tendency of people to overreact and to go to extremes. It is also the strong "either/or" tendency in Protestantism. It has illogically and unbiblically pitted Tradition against Scripture, and so the latter is chosen (I think, in most cases, unconsciously or automatically) and the former neglected.
It's a reaction against Catholicism. We're the ones who emphasize historical continuity, apostolic succession, the authority of doctrines long since decided in ecumenical councils, the communion of saints (so that we can learn from our departed brothers and sisters who went before us).
Chesterton said something about tradition being the "democracy of the dead."
I would also say (being a bit more "polemical" now) that Protestantism loses out if history is too closely considered, because the fathers are so thoroughly Catholic, and obviously so, that for Protestants to stress reading them too much, would be rather counter-productive. Many a convert cites the fathers as a key to their road to conversion.
They played a huge role in my own conversion, via Cardinal Newman's book, Essay on the Development of Christian Dogma, because I saw how they could not be forced into a Protestant mold. I've written a lot about the Church fathers being far more Catholic than "proto-Protestant":
Were the Church Fathers Closer to Protestantism Than to Catholicism?
Dialogue on Whether the Church Fathers Were Closer to Protestantism Than to Catholicism
Honor Thy Denominations Rather Than Thy Church Fathers? (Lutherans, Sola Scriptura, and the Fathers)
Dialogue With a Lutheran on Whether Lutheranism or Catholicism is More Consistent With Patristic and Early Church Beliefs (+ Part II)
Dialogue on Lutheranism and the Church Fathers, Part III
The Importance of Studying Martin Luther / Protestant Ignoring of Luther & Church History / Inevitability of Protestant Tradition & "Human" Authority
Lutheran-Catholic Group Dialogue #2: The Nature of the True Church and Authoritative Christian Tradition / Questions on Institutional Separation (+ Discussion)
St. Augustine Was a CATHOLIC, Not a Proto-Protestant (+ Discussion)
St. Augustine: Are Reformed Protestants or Catholics Closer Theologically to His Teaching?
The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine
St. Athanasius Was a CATHOLIC, Not a Proto-Protestant (+ Counter-Reply to James White on Tradition, etc.) (+ Discussion)
Introduction to My Book, The Church Fathers Were Catholic: Patristic Evidences for Catholicism (+ Discussion)
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
cyanheaven
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 29 |
| First Name: | Callie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist/ Bapticostal/ Baptist/ currently prefer BaptoCatholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 08:02 pm |
|
There is a growing movement among Baptists, for example my mentor and former evangelical pastor is a Patristics schollar. and it was a local Baptist church through whom i was introduced to both Merton, Keating, Brother Lawrance, Teresa of Avlia among others. At least in the education i was given there is an effort occuring to reclaim and reteach thousands of years of neglected history and influence. However this effort is not seen in every class, notably the exegesis classesand protestant special topics classes. We as Protestants invision a history that is completely cut off from Catholicism in practice both currently and in terms ofour historical roots.
But honestly how many Catholic Churches teach Protestant history? Theres the fact that Catholic history begins long before Luther but there is still silence about the lives, thoughts, and spiritual identity of your fellow brothers. But again who can be to blame really? Anyone interested in other forms of Protestantism usually have to seek it out themselves outside the walls of their church, either through friends or books or visiting other churches.
Communication occurs on both sides of the fence but the absence of Communication isn't meant to be malicious.
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 524 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 08:20 pm |
|
I think that it is like Dave said above, "...the tendency of people to overreact and to to extremes." I was raised in an independent Christian Church. That denomination, so I was told, was founded by people who were trying to go back to the early church, to reestablish it (not that it needed reestablishing, however, for whatever reasons, they thought so). And, in some ways, it and the similar Baptist denomination, did translate well from the early colonial settled areas of our nation to the developing frontiers. Way out in the boonies of eastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia where I was raised (yes, as CajunRick pointed out, I IS a hillbilly  ), the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians did not get out there until up in the mid to late 1860s (not a negative reflection on them, just how things happened to work out and the Catholics DID get to some other wild frontier areas of our nation way before the protestants and did outstanding, AWESOME things to bring the Gospel to those areas as well as did, very commendably, eventually come into my home area - they were very busy, in our growing nation, and had to do what they could as the Lord provided and made them able, dunno why it worked out that way, it just did, no judgment implied). You find a whole bunch of Baptists, Christian Church/Disciples of Christ/Churches of Christ churches out there in my home area, which was part of the old frontier, as well as a whole bunch of Methodist and Presbyterian churches. And, again, they were simply doing what they thought they had to do, in a rough, simplistic population, to try to spread the Gospel. Who knows? God may have used them as His "point troops", His "advanced scouts", as the military might say, in my area whereas in other areas the Catholics were the "point troops" and "scouts". Anyway, these movements had been developing for years and they did tend to strongly focus on the years discussed in the Bible and tended to ignore what went on after that. I finally started to learn about the years after the Biblical years and, as a history buff, have been "happier than an ol' hawg wallerin' in slop" (pardon my homly image here, ha, ha - I probably should have said, "happier than a University of Tennessee "Lady Vols" fan, ha, ha) as I have learned about the Saints and church history since the Biblical times. If it was up to me, I would have the protestants start teaching children and young people a LOT more about church history and so forth, however, they don't ask me and likely wouldn't listen to me. So, I am just glad that I started to learn about what was missing from my earlier religious education and hope and pray that someday God will lead the protestant denominations to do more about telling their members "...the REST of the story," as a famous broadcaster says. A gentleman I knew, in my home town, had been raised in a Methodist Church, however, when he and his Presbyterian wife were married, since she wanted to remain a Presbyterian, he joined her church and attended church with her. However, he used to humorously tell the people at his Presbyterian church that he was "...a Methodist missionary to the Presbyterians", ha, ha! I liked him and enjoyed his saying (which was mentioned during his funeral, by the way, and everyone chuckled), when I learned of it. So, with that in mind, perhaps the Catholic Church needs to send Catholic missionaries to the protestant churches, ha, ha!
|
|
|
Roaming Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | St. Catharines, Ontario Canada |
| Posts: | 7 |
| First Name: | Tim | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised RC, Pentecostal, Baptist, Mennonite, Anglican, Evangelical-Missionary |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 08:58 pm |
|
I tend to agree that it hasn't been intentional neglect on the part of church leadership. As someone who has worked closely with evangelical church leadership in the past, and who has lead ministries and taught adults at church, I know that it was/ is due to ignorance. One thing I can vouch for is that most evangelicals desire to pursue the truth regardless of where it might take them (however, this seems to be different for those who come from a more fundamentalist background whose tendency is to bury their head if the truth doesn't agree with their current theology). As David W. has pointed out, most of the problems have been due to the notion of sola scriptura.
I also spent 2 years studying at Regent College (interdenominational evangelical) under such luminaries as J.I. Packer and Eugene Peterson. I studied together with those being trained for pastoral leadership and I don't recall hearing much about the early church fathers. I'm curious at this point to look back on my history notes and see what might have simply gone over my head because I wasn't in the frame of mind to hear it. I am somewhat perplexed that the history prof didn't focus a lot more on them - and I wonder if that was neglect or was he under an 'unspoken rule' that the fathers shouldn't be taught much? I suspect, however, that it was more due to the implicit thinking that their writings (second generation) weren't really that important in comparison to the writings of the apostles (first generation).
Most protestant pastors just simply aren't aware of the early fathers except for a vague consciousness of them as historical characters. There's not much awareness among most protestant leaders that the writings of the early church fathers are still extant. Several of my best friends are seminary trained or are evangelical pastors as well, and with the exception of 1 or 2 of them, when I've started talking about the apostolic fathers I get mostly blank stares and I can see this is stuff they've never heard of.
Nevertheless, I do have to say that it was my time at seminary which, so to speak, put the foot in the door for the Catholic church in my thinking. We read St. Patrick's confession and St. Augustine's Confessions which made me aware of the depth of spirituality among church leaders at that time in history (i.e. after the time of Constantine when the church had supposedly gone off track already!) And in teaching on spirituality, most of the professors kept pointing to Catholic authors and saints of the Catholic church - a number of which were required reading. For one course we also went for a weekend retreat to a Catholic monastery. So I can only say that while I'm grateful for my theological training, looking back now it is puzzling that the church fathers were so neglected.
Tim
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
I'm glad I started this thread .... like the rest of you, I don't think this was intentionally left out, or removed, but, with The Bible being the only true Source of the Protestant belief system .... what more is needed? Keeping that in mind makes a lot of sense. But .... like a lot of you, I've sat under the teaching of some highly-versed, highly-knowledgeable men of God ... well-known in many circles. What about them? Did not anything within their own intelligent curiosity make them wonder about the long history of the Church? Then I could say that God's Spirit is the One who does the leading ... and that is very true. But, is it not probable He did the same with many of those people also? Or were, and are, their minds just too closed to really do an independent study on the subject. It seems unfathomable to me that clear-thinking, intelligent people can just overlook such a foundational piece of Christianity. ((the marbles are rolling again!))
Thanks to everyone for your insightful, thought-provoking replies ... I really do appreciate it.
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
EMarshallBuckles
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rockville (Near Richmond), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 524 |
| First Name: | Marshall | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Christian Church,Episcopal Church,Baptist denomination,learning about RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10th, 2008 09:06 pm |
|
| Not intending to become a Minister, just out of curiosity, I have examined the curricula and course offerings of a number of seminaries (hey, everbody needs a hobby - keeps me off the street and out of the pool halls, ha, ha). Usually, the protestant, evangelical seminaries do have church history courses and theology courses as well as some comparative courses - offered reasonably frequently. However, as I recall, the focus is usually on gaining some level of basic competence in Hebrew and Greek, gaining basic training in theology (with a focus on their denomination) and Bible studies to a certain extent, PREACHING of course, and some basic "how to counsel", "how to handle a church budget", and other such "how to" courses. Unless someone is planning on being a Biblical or theological scholar and go on to get an advanced degree, the emphasis is on giving the Minister to be (Priest to be in the Anglican and Episcopalian denominations) the basic skills they need to be hired by a local church and run it effectively handling the basic spiritual needs of their "flock". An uncle of mine was a Christian Church Minister. He said that "most churches (protestant evangelical) want somebody to preach to 'em on Sunday while they sleep sitting up in the pews, baptize 'em, marry 'em and bury 'em and try to keep the budget balanced." SIGH!
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10th, 2008 09:21 pm |
|
I think you're absolutely right, EMB .... it's just not considered of that much consequence to most. I can't help but think there's also a portion of "oh, that's catholic stuff," so the choice is made to ignore it, or as so often happens pick and choose what to major on.
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10th, 2008 09:31 pm |
|
It seems to be a common thread with radical revolutionaries, be they spiritual or political. In the case of the Reformation, you had both varieties.
Luther laid the groundwork for a theological difference, but even before he knew it, the nobles grasped the significance of a major rebellion and what it could mean for them if all of a sudden the Church's hold on secular politics, and social institutions could be wrested away from it. It wasn't the peasants, serfs or even most of the burgeoning middle class artisans who wanted the so-called "reformation." It was the nobles who saw Luther's spiritual rebellion as an opportunity for one of the biggest land-grabs and wealth redistribution schemes in recorded history.
Were there some greedy religious orders and bishoporics who embarrassed themselves and the Lord through their machinations? Sure. (Just as there are greedy mechachurchianity pastors today. (Oddly I don't see any unrest among many American protestants today. Perhaps thats because maybe they see a minister's material success as a sign of God's approval for his or her "spiritual entreprenurial leadership" and so on. Very American and very pro-capitalistic, not to mention a mild glorification and blessing for individualism, even clerical individualism. But, this, too, is a hallmark of Protestantism which makes no bones in its approval of individual initiative over the kind of teamwork a set and workable hierarchy requires.
But in order to pull this off and give their flocks the impression that so long as they are saved once and for all times at one setting, and so forth, they've cleverly managed to convince many Protestants that an extensive knowledge of all Church history isn't necessary at all to become saved. (They're right, but they're not telling the whole story. A deeper knowledge of Church history would, as Cardinal Newman pointed out, de-Protestanize many of our separated brethern and bring them this way.
One of the most tragic legacies of this revolutionary white-washing of history to suit immediate revolutionary and expedient ends, is the mastery of the Russian Bolsheviks and Stalinists when it came to air-brushing any and all "incorrect" facts. And before the Reds (and their Fascist cousins, not to mention our political correctness gestapos on our college campuses), Henry VIII, THomas Cramner and eventually Oliver Cromwell demonstrated how powerfully clever editorial licence can be in the hands of the wrong and most power-hungry people.
First the elites feel terribly uncomfortable; then they start defining what makes them uncomfortable. Following all of this, they work like beavers to get the rest of us to do the erasing of our own history for them. That way they can lie to the whole world by saying, "See, everyone's on our side."
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
Annie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 718 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
If the Protestant leaders know about the early Church fathers and are afraid that if the lay people start reading them they will become Catholic and so don't mention them, isn't that deliberate? That is what appears to happen in the mainline Protestant faith communities such as the United Methodist church. Of course sola scriptura makes it all irrelevant but that is a convenient excuse to not mention this.
I know some Methodists who read the Desert Fathers and seriously considered converting. Their pastor had a hard time reining them in (with a strong dose of how evil the Church is, ha ha, and a sense that they would lose their friends).
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 02:59 pm |
|
Annie, great points. What's even more ironically amusing is watching some Protestants mah-vel, as comedian Billy Crystal would put it, over ancient fathers' ruggedly individualistic determination to go off into the desert to pray, write all these books -- which they sell and package quite nicely through Christianity Today and Christian Book Distributors (excellent sources, nonetheless) -- and they still miss the strike zone on every pitch.
And why? Well, it all goes back to the way their pedagogy is crafted: along ideology to suit their rebellious purpose of promoting the Protestant, i.e. against "popery" perspective of the Christian faith. The fact that this approach does a great disservice to the men and women they rightly and no doubt sincerely want to honor, also goes right over their heads. And so it almost did with me at a time when I took a course on Church history at our family church. (A little "sidebar" explanation here: Although I've "poped" back to the real Old Time Religion, my family'schosen to remain and we have many friends we love there. I'm the "papist/baptist" of the family and church.) If memory serves me correctly, at the time I was in a fog at the time, hitting near bottom with a rough patch of depression and job worries.
BUT, but, but -- I hadn't lost everything, and my antennae were still picking up signals sufficiently enough to tell me something was really out of whack when I started hearing the line "... when Constantine became emperor, legalized the Church, and changed things all around, it was also a time when the CHurch got to be very materialistic, built huge basilicas, and to make a longer string of bullcrap much shorter, it "ceased to be christian" and "became catholic." Outrageous enough, but what outrages me more is that I didn't catch up on it and call them on the spot for nodding in approval much like those kids in Osama's Madrassas only just a few weeks after reading about St. Ignatius calling the church "catholic" and about Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians. (We see it as an encyclical: They see it as a "papal bull." Pun quite well intended!)
What they see and like in the early fathers is just that, the individualistic spir it against the excesses of anything released from oppression, whatever. But they mistake their interpretations of the Fathers' intent and craft these misinterpretations as fact. Yes, the early Fathers (and some Mothers) eschewed the pleasures of the empire, and did so to protect the Faith and their faith, but they didn't do so with the intent of starting up an entirely new church. They had more than enough "dissidents" in their time to put up with, but somehow this fact always gets the short shrift when even the most open-minded P's get around to discussing all 2,000 years worth of our history.
If I get the chance, or muster up the patience, to sit in on a class taught by P's about the Church Fathers and hear these old half-truths and convenient spiritual urban legends of ancient Rome again, I'm going to remind them what a very patrician-like senator of our times, the late Danial Patrick Moynihan said: Everyone has the right to their opinions, but they don't have the right to make their own facts.
He also said quite famously (after his friend JFK was shot) that being Irish is knowing that the world will one day break your heart: Well, the same could be said just for being Catholic around people who'll kill not only facts, but the very essence of what made those facts factual especially when it's about all Church history to suit their rebellious designs and private agendas.
I don't know if you've ever seen those famous shots of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky speaking somewhere in Russia during the revolution. There was only one shot taken, but the Bolshies made more changes and sub-changes of those photos (depending on who was "in" or "out" of grace) to suit even the most diabolically inspired algebra instructor who wanted to torment his students with the circular Venn diagrams.
All too many contemporary evangelical Protestant "historians" don't seem to mind following the Reds' splendid example. In their view, history isn't necessary because it all centers on the individual. So why bother risking somebody's personal faith and personal walk with the Lord with all those pesky facts about the necessary contributions of so many more people working in tandem during their time on earth? This is as good a reason for us to be far more content with being Catholic in God's world than anything remotely resemblling an individualistic American Protestant in world dominated by materialistic, jingoistic and manipulative megachurches and personality-driven instant denominations. I love my country, but God and His Church and Her Truths first and foremost.
Right across the street from where I volunteer my services is the largest Newman Center on the east coast, and maybe the nation/world. And you can rest assured it stands out symbolically speaking as a dagger in the throats of many of the most blindly blithefully speaking evangelical Protestants I've come to meet. Oh, they'll pleasantly remark about the cafeteria/snak bar, and its convenient location next to their academic buildings -- BUT THEY STILL MISS NEWMAN'S MESSAGE ABOUT BEING DEEP INTO HISTORY.
Or do they?
Last edited on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 03:10 pm by Steven Barrett
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 03:23 pm |
|
Hi Steve ... well, I'm going to stick my neck out here, and probably get it whacked off, but I really think this needs to be said. I may be the "only voice in the wilderness" and I realize that.
While I may agree with the most of what you've written, and after 63 years on this earth, and, not being a thin-skinned Christian, I really need to emphasize that the way we come across to those of the Protestant faith, or any other faith for that matter who is not Catholic, is of utmost importance. And, I don't mean softening or changing any Catholic beliefs ... not at all. What I mean is these things can be shared in the Spirit of Christ's Love and Compassion ... without demeaning or diminishing another person's faith. I think of the old, time-worn cliche' ... "you can draw more bees to honey than you can to vinegar."
Bless you, my friend,
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 20 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 03:47 pm |
|
abbycat wrote: This question keeps rolling around in my head (sort of like marbles!) . I have spent 40 of my 63 years on this earth as a Christian, first in a Reformed Presbyterian Church, then Church of the Brethren for a brief time, then Full Gospel, and then a non-denominational mega-church .... throughout all that time, I do not believe I ever once heard an utterance about the Ancient Church, Early Church Fathers, or the true roots of Protestant Christianity. When it came to the Scriptural reference of Peter as "the Rock" ... it was always taken to mean Peter, the other Apostles, and all Christians who followed after them. There were brief, fleeting references to St. Augustine, and possibly a few other holy men who lived centuries ago, but only if they wrote a "nice poem" or if there was a "pretty statue" to put in one's yard ... you know, feeding the birds and all that. As I think of this, there is a part of me that really feels as though I, and many others, were kept in the dark .... intentionally? I'm not going to take a guess at that as I don't know anyone's heart, but I find it very, very, distressing to say the least. Thanks for listening to my mini-rant!
abby
I'm a former Protestant, and was in quite a few denominations, and studied a few others even though I may have never considered myself a part of that belief system, and I dont think there is an easy answer. The best answer is "it depends"....
Not sure if this was brought up yet, but its important to not forget that most of the low Church Protestants believe the Church fell into utter heresy in 313 AD, and wasn't "restored" until the Reformation. So why in the world would they teach or learn anything about this heretical, paganized, idol worshipping Church? The thing is most Protestants, as I did, honestly truly believe this to be the case. I know I did. And all because I heard it from Protestant ministers who would never lie about such things.
And you know what, most of THEM aren't lying either....they honestly believe it because it is what they were taught....even Protestant seminaries who teach courses in Church history teach false history....not because they intend to deceive anyone, but because...well you tell a lie long enough, and people believe it's true.
The short answer is that they simply do not know. I didn't. My view of Church history was very different than what really happened. OTH, I think Catholics and Orthodox tend to underplay the changes that did take place at times too so as to prevent people from overeacting. When Catholics say the fathers of the 2nd century had a total understanding of Papal Primacy as it exists today in the West and so everyone should accept it because some Church father who knew an Apostle did, they simply are "lying"...again not LYING in the classic sense but telling a falsehood they honestly believe to be true. In turn, when Orthodox say doctrine doesn't develop at all, or that Icons were 100% accepted before Constantine, they too are "lying"....again, not in the sense of misleading, but just in the sense that they believe it so it must be true. We all "mean well" but problems can arise because you tell a falsehood and it becomes "truth"....I think the term lie is a bad one I'm using....telling something they believe to be true is probably more like it.
Often times we (Catholics and Orthodox) do this to make the point that Papal Primacy, Icons, Incense, etc are NOT foreign or pagan inventions, but sometimes we do a diservice by saying EVERY Christian accepted them before 313AD. But that's just my cynical opinion.
Anyways, this is what has happened in the Protestant Churches IMHO, they've told something for so long, it's now "true"! Did you know there are even "quotes" from the Church fathers that Protestants use to prove their doctrines that are forgeries? Yet most protestants have no idea they are forgeries. They just assume they're real. They do the same with Martin Luther, who believed in the Real Presence, the ever Viginity of Mary, and other such things that today most Protestants find heretical, and most Protestants have no idea he taught such things. (nor do they know he thought the Epistle of James was "an epistle of straw")
One reason I believe the Evangelical type of Christian group can be so succesful here in the U.S. in particular is because we are ignorant of history, not only our own, but world history and Church history as well. People are just not informed sadly. And so for the most part, your typical Protestant just isn't going to accept Augustine, Chrysostom or whoever because they've been taught they were evil men (or just not good Christians or whatever) and its hard to accept everyting you've been taught since you were young could not be totally accurate.
With all that said, there ARE some Christians, in particular pastors who DO know Church history, DO know that not everything the fathers wrote squares up with their denomination, yet they ignore this either because of Sola Scriptura, OR because they are just dishonest people trying to make money, or lead up a political agenda of some sort. John Hagee for example DOES know Church history and quotes extensiviely from the fathers, however he is violently anti Catholic, anti Liturgical, and Pro Israel. Whether he's dishonest, a crook, or just too deep into Sola Scriptura I do not know....but I think he is an exception. I think most Protestants do not know Church history, and if they do they only accept parts that fit into their belief structure. And in the end, the historical Church(es) have made some serious blunders over the centuries, and it can be to hard accept that a Church that would sanction the crusades, or allow their Church to become a Cummunist training ground (which the Russian Orthodox Church did supposedly out of self preservation) could be the true Church of Christ. Of course, almost no Protestant Church is free from the same type of corruption, (slavery anyone?) but these are "over looked". Considering the Apostolic Church has been around for 2000 years, we've actually got a pretty good record, and many saints who openly opposed the Church when it did corrupt or inproper things (I think Padre Pio might fit this but I'm not sure, St. Nektarios of Aegenia would be a modern saint for the East)...its just that these grand things stand out in peoples minds because they lack knowledge. As the Scriptures says, "My people perish for lack of knowledge"!
Hopefully no one takes offense to anything I've said, as I am Orthodox and love the Roman Church, I only did a little "bashing" to make a point..(note I bashed my Church twice as much as I did Rome...lol!) The point I'm making is its easy to turn a "point" into a fact, even if the point was a bit of an exageration. This is what has happened with the Protestant Churches, GENERALLY speaking that.
Of course I'm not including high Church Anglicans and Lutherans in this because they DO learn Church history, and in fact most converts I believe come out of those two groups if I'm not mistaken!
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 05:22 pm |
|
Excellent post "northstar" ....
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
Current time is 01:12 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
