steve said...
James Swan said...
"Out of curiousity, where exactly does 'Deep in History' end up?"
That terminates somewhere between the Quarternary and the Cretaceous.
Geologists are still scouring the fossil record for missing links connecting Peter to the Roman "primates." Experts differ on whether Pierolapithecus was a pope or antipope.
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
- John Henry Newman
"To be deep in history is to be deep in trilobites."
- Stephen Jay Gould
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI realize you're just attempting to be humorous and/or satirical again, but to be clear the study of fossil records, etc. is PRE-historic! The quote from Gould should read, "To be deep in archeology is to be deep in trilobites."
Now yes, it can be argued that the archeological record is "history" too, but typically when we speak of history we speak of the WRITTEN RECORD. Certainly the hieroglyphics of ancient man are some sort of "record" too - but the men who drew them are still considered to be "prehistoric."
That being said, St. John Cardinal Newman is referring to Christian history. It was through his seeking to disprove Catholicism which led him to study the history of the Christian Church through the Early Church Fathers. The deeper he got into (Christian) history, the less Protestant he became and eventually converted to the Catholic Faith - as is our hope for all of you and I'm sure the motive behind St. Newman's quote. Study the Fathers! Did they celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass? That alone should suffice in revealing the truth to those who honestly seek it.
Scott<<<
To be deep in church history is to realize the discrepancy between earlier stages of church history and the theological innovations of the Roman church. That's why Newman gave up on the traditional appeal to the consensus patrum, a la Bellarmine, and contrived his face-saving theory of development to paper over the discrepancy.
ReplyDelete"That's why Newman gave up on the traditional appeal to the consensus patrum, a la Bellarmine, and contrived his face-saving theory of development to paper over the discrepancy."
ReplyDeleteHmmmmmm.
Hmmmmmm again.
Yeeeesh. Newman is going to be (or has been) sainted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Steve said:To be deep in church history is to realize the discrepancy between earlier stages of church history and the theological innovations of the Roman church. That's why Newman gave up on the traditional appeal to the consensus patrum, a la Bellarmine, and contrived his face-saving theory of development to paper over the discrepancy.
ReplyDeleteIf what you're saying is true, then why did St. Newman give up on his Protestantism and join the Catholic Church? Is it "saving face" to admit your whole life as a Protestant was a lie? Do you even understand the consensus patrum?
It appears that when your sarcasm fails, you turn to bitterness, is that how it works?
CATHAPOL SAID:
ReplyDelete"If what you're saying is true, then why did St. Newman give up on his Protestantism and join the Catholic Church?"
He didn't. He went from Calvinism through Anglicanism, then Anglo-Catholicism, to Roman Catholicism.
"Is it 'saving face' to admit your whole life as a Protestant was a lie?"
He wasn't a Protestant his whole life, or even for most of his life.
"Do you even understand the consensus patrum?"
There is no consensus to understand.
"It appears that when your sarcasm fails, you turn to bitterness, is that how it works?"
It appears that when your argument fails, you project, is that how it works?
sw: "If what you're saying is true, then why did St. Newman give up on his Protestantism and join the Catholic Church?"
ReplyDeleteSH: He didn't. He went from Calvinism through Anglicanism, then Anglo-Catholicism, to Roman Catholicism.
sw: Calvinism is Protestantism, Anglicanism is Protestantism, however for the sake of argument let's just re-ask the question... Why did St. Newman give up on his Calvinism and later Anglicanism to join Catholicism?
sw: "Is it 'saving face' to admit your whole life as a Protestant was a lie?"
SH: He wasn't a Protestant his whole life, or even for most of his life.
Try reading a bit more carefully. I said "his life AS a Protestant..." I did not say it was his "whole life" period. So how about answering the question?
sw: "Do you even understand the consensus patrum?"
SH: There is no consensus to understand.
I see, so your answer is you don't understand it and thus you deny it.
sw: "It appears that when your sarcasm fails, you turn to bitterness, is that how it works?"
SH: It appears that when your argument fails, you project, is that how it works?
I don't recall using "is that how it works" previously. If I did then it was quite rare. So, by your logic then most of what I have argued has not failed. That being said, your attempt to table turn does not answer or nullify the observation I have made.
Scott<<<
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYour contributions are appreciated. From SuperPope, one reads the following:
"Scott Windsor is one of those nearsighted Catholic epologists who unwittingly does more damage to the case for Catholicism than I ever could."