RE: Ask a Catholic
June 1, 2015 at 9:30 am
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2015 at 9:33 am by Randy Carson.)
(June 1, 2015 at 5:11 am)pocaracas Wrote: I used NFP... and am now the proud father of 2 failures of that method. (My first kid wasn't included in this experiment).
And how many parents were using "protection" that also failed?
(June 1, 2015 at 9:30 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Since you were raised Protestant, what would you say had the most impact in swaying you to become Catholic?
Apart from the grace of God? Thinking about history.
I know you are not a Christian, but consider the following which explains what I mean very well:
John Henry Newman on History’s Judgment of Protestantism
[Some Protestants say], "There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:"—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .
“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)