In the 19th century, Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote that "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant". To this day, Catholics quote this so often, I wonder if they wear pyjamas decorated with it. It even features in discussions where history is completely and utterly irrelevant, simply because Catholics rely very heavily on arguments from Church history. You will often hear things like "the first 1500 years of Christianity", or "the unanimous consent of the fathers" etc.
The historical argument is favored where the Biblical argument is weak. This is particularly evident when the Biblical argument is not weak. Where Catholic doctrine is consistent with scripture, history very rarely, if ever, features. Take, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is amply attested to in scripture. Therefore, Trinitarians, including Catholics, never need to leave its pages when defending the doctrine. That doesn't mean we don't occasionally do so, but we can show from scripture that there is a grand total of one God, but that He exists in 3 separate persons. 3 individuals are clearly identified as being the one God: The Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. We could cite historical precedent for this, but 1. we don't need to, and 2. doing so actually weakens the case for the Trinity, as relying on the (non-existent) authority of later figures makes it appear our case is based on them, which of course it isn't.
But when Christians try to use the identical approach with Catholicism's unique doctrines, suddenly the Bible isn't a discussion Catholics want to have. It's always "history, history, history". It is beyond frustrating, because aside from the fact scripture is so firmly against Catholicism that it is a discussion they absolutely should want to have, it also happens to be the final authority. Whenever I talk to Catholics, most of me wants to stay on the scriptures, no matter how much they insist on avoiding them like a cat avoids a bathtub. But a part of me just wants to shout "ok, you want to talk about history, let's talk about history!" Well, my Catholic friends, you want to talk about history? Let's talk about history.
The Bible IS history
Part of the folly of the historical argument is that it still wouldn't excuse removing the Bible from the picture. History didn't begin when John's life ended, it began when the Spirit of God hovered over the waters (Genesis 1:1-2). Adam is a historical figure. Noah is a historical figure. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are historical figures. Trying to set scripture aside in favor of history is like trying to set the Old Testament aside in favor of the New Testament, with one difference: Nothing coming after the New Testament is authoritative (Jude 1:3).
The ironic thing is, not even the so-called Church "Fathers" agreed with any concept of Apostolic succession, setting the Apostles apart from other men, and even declaring it heretical to suggest you cannot interpret scripture apart from the Apostles. Irenaeus, for example, wrote that when heretics "...are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth." (1)
And what do Catholics say when they are confuted by the scriptures? They turn round and accuse these same scriptures as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. But scripture testifies to the opposite; it says it gives understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130), and that by studying them, one can gain more understanding than one's enemies, elders, and teachers (Psalm 119:97-100).
"Development of Doctrine"
The ironic thing about Newman's claim is that ultimately, he gives the best refutation of it. In his essay "On the Development of Christian Doctrine", Newman contended that although Catholicism seems to have evolved over time, it has actually always remained the same. It has merely become more explicit over time. Newman contended that "Protestants" must agree with this, as we believe doctrines that were defined later in history, such as, you guessed it, the Trinity.
But as I explained in the introduction, this is not true. "Protestants", of course, adhere to a concept known as "Sola Scriptura". Sola Scriptura is the common sense doctrine that scripture, being the word of God Himself, is the final authority in the Christian faith. Scripture is infallible, no other source is. Of course, the Catholic Church would argue against this, but the onus is on them to prove their claims, not on us to refute them. However, the Catholic Church officially agrees that scripture is the word of God. Thus, we have no need to dispute this claim. Furthermore, even if Catholics want to pretend their Church is protected from error, it is just a logical fact that an infallible source will agree with another infallible source.
From this, we can see that although the Bible never uses the word "Trinity", the concept is very clearly there. The early Church didn't need any help, least of all from the (as yet non-existent) Catholic Church, to understand that there is one God, that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. Just as you can present a pretty clear picture of a tiger without saying the word "tiger", you can present the Trinity without the word "Trinity". Therefore, Newman's claim that the Trinity mirrors Catholicism's unique doctrine does not work.
The Evolution of Catholicism
In stark contrast to the Trinity, Catholicism's unique doctrines are completely absent, if not flat out contradicted by scripture. This alone proves Newman's theory wrong, as these doctrines did not exist, even in primitive forms, in the early Church. There is no Papacy, there is no Purgatory, there are no Marian dogmas, the 7 Sacraments aren't there, the priesthood of all believers is, you could spend hours listing out the Biblical errors in the Catholic Church (and indeed, I have spent a fair amount of time doing so). In other words, since the Bible is not only valid, but also divinely authoritative history, it's game over from the first century.
But lesser proof comes from the fact that even after the Bible was completed, the Catholicism of the past is not identical to the Catholicism of today. In fact, many Church Councils were held to solve disputes which would be quite laughable to modern Catholics. For example, the Real Presence. Catholics may be surprised to hear that although there were those who held to a more literal view of the Eucharist, it wasn't until 1215 A.D. when the Fourth Lateran Council declared this official Catholic dogma. Prior to this, even Catholic monks, such as Ratramnus, denied this. One can hardly imagine such disputes occurring within the Catholic Church today, but they were quite common throughout history.
The "Fathers" were rarely, if ever, unanimous
Furthermore, in stark contrast to the Catholic Church's claim to have "the unanimous consent of the fathers", it turns out the so-called Church "Fathers" (who were not the Fathers of the Church) disagreed with each other, and even themselves, on many issues. For example, Augustine wrote "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (2).
What we see from this is that Augustine actually started with a semi-Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18, which today is officially cited as proof of the Papacy, claiming Peter was the rock. Note, however, that in The Retractions, not only does Augustine recant this interpretation, but gives a very "Protestant"-sounding explanation for it.
This is not the first, nor the only time Church "Fathers" sound "Protestant". In fact, one thing I've noticed to a frustrating degree is that virtually anyone can cite the so-called "Fathers". Catholics and "Protestants" alike are quite capable of citing them. Anthony Rogers, for example, puts them in their proper place as useful sources, though by no means infallible. He skilfully demonstrates that they often agreed with things that would sound "Protestant", even to a Catholic.
Furthermore, even other heretics are often capable of twisting the "Fathers" to suit their views, if indeed they needed to be twisted. The Church "Fathers", much like theologians today, held a number of weird and wonderful views. One example I like to use is the prominent belief that Adam and Eve did not eat a fruit from a forbidden tree, but rather, they had sex. That's right, there were plenty of Church "Fathers" who believe Adam and Eve were punished for... obeying God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". The reason I like this particular example is because of a debate I had with a Catholic some time ago. He took issue with my article on Church "Fathers" who interpreted the Eucharist symbolically, and dismissed Origen as a heretic because "he was never officially Sainted", and believed the myth above. Yet, Saint Jerome, who also said some very non-Catholic things, believed the same.
The Catholic Claim to Fame
Even more laughable than any of the above is the Catholic Church's audacious claim that they produced the Bible. This silly claim shows up in almost any discussion on the legitimacy of Catholicism. I almost fell over when I first heard it claimed. It is self evidently wrong, for many obvious reasons, not least of which being the Old Testament Canon, at least, was completed by the Jews even before Jesus was born (and He affirmed their canon). As for the New Testament, it is laughable to claim that it wasn't recognised before the Catholic Church came along and solved the dispute.
The oldest known canonical list is the Muratorian Fragment, which is dated to around 180 A.D. I found it particularly amusing during one debate with a Catholic who claimed there was no Bible for 400 years after Christ, and I pointed to this fragment (among other things), and he suddenly switched to "the Catholic Church produced all canonical lists, including the Muratorian fragment". The dude didn't even know it existed until I told him about it, but suddenly he presumed to know its origins.
Even before the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, we know that the Church recognised the canon, because we even see them listing it. Athanasius, for example, listed the New Testament canon in his 29th Festal Letter (367 A.D.), a full 30 years before Carthage. But even before him, Origen, in "Homilies on the Book of Joshua", parabolically listed the entire New Testament canon. There is some dispute as to whether or not the inclusion of Revelation in this parable is original to Origen, but from the rest of his works, it is clear that he considered it canonical. In other words, even before 250 A.D., the canon was well known.
But what's ironic is that the Catholic Church themselves did not fix their canon until the Council of Trent. While it is often claimed that "Protestants" removed the Deuterocanon, disputes on the canonicity of the Deuterocanon have persisted throughout history. It was officially added to the Catholic canon by the Council of Trent, but prior to this, many prominent figures, including the aforementioned Athanasius, and even Pope Gregory the Great, rejected them as canonical.
Conclusion
Newman's claim that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant is neither new, nor likely to disappear any time soon, but when one actually is deep in history, it becomes obvious that it is as erroneous as Rabbinic Judaism. There is much truth in the Catholic Church, as can be shown by the scriptures, but there are also many egregious errors, which may be able to find some basis in history, but will never be able to stand against the word of God. The ever-changing dogmas of the Catholic Church are compatible neither with the word of God, nor with the historical beliefs of those who faithfully studied and applied it. We must therefore conclude that a little history will make you a Catholic, just as a little science will make you an atheist, but to be deep in scripture is to be protected from both errors.
References
1. Irenaeus - Against Heresies
2. Augustine - The Retractions