As a former Protestant, I can tell you that when discussing theology with Protestants, your primary arsenal should be Scripture, because, essentially, Protestants adhere to sola Scriptura. This means that other sources of information (the Church Fathers, etc) are secondary. However, as pointed out here, we Catholics use Tradition to help us interpret Scripture, because Tradition is the evidence of what Christians have always believed. Thus, good apologists, in my humble opinion, need to have a good grasp of historical Tradition when discussing issues with Protestants.
This is where History becomes important. Tradition isn't simply evident in the writings of the Fathers. Tradition includes the way in which the Early Church acted. Tradition includes the sacramentaries of early dioceses, the architecture of early churches, and the manner in which the faith was lived. Thus, if Catholics maintain that a particular doctrine is part of Tradition, you would expect o find it buried in the sources of Tradition...including history.
For example, if Catholics claim that the Pope, the bishop of Rome, has supremacy, you'd expect not only to see it in documents, but likewise in reality, in the way people act. If an apologist can prove that Christian history either does or doesn't relfect a certain belief (for example, Christians have always forbid contraception--until 1951, that is--but they have not alway forbid the death penalty), they can thusly provide evidence for a more, shall we say, authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture (because Tradition and Scripture, being both Divinely Inspired, cannot contradict each other).
This is why Bl. John Henry Newman, the famous Anglican cleric whose forays into history made him realize the Truth behind Catholicism, once said "To study history is to cease to be Protestant."
No comments:
Post a Comment