Some "Protestants", like myself, believe that among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life. The italicised words I have just used are not my own. Rather, it is an example of a Church Father (namely Augustine in "On Christian Doctrine", Book 2, Chapter 9) who explicitly stated a "Protestant" doctrine, i.e. Sola Scriptura, about 1,150 years before the Reformation.
As it turns out, this happens rather frequently. Contrary to Catholic claims, the Church "Fathers" (a major misnomer, they are not the fathers of the Church) were not as staunchly Catholic as they are said to have been. Augustine's almost word for word description of Sola Scriptura is not an isolated incident by any means.
As I stated in the header image, Catholics really like the topic of Church history. This is mainly because they know most Christians haven't studied it. This allows Catholics to copy and paste select quotes that support (or at least seem to support) Catholic doctrines, giving the appearance of a long, unbroken chain of Catholic doctrine from beginning to end. But as with any topic, this approach only works against the ignorant. When a non-Catholic uses Church history to show that the Church Fathers constantly disagreed with modern Catholicism (which, of course, did not exist at the time, as Catholicism constantly evolves), suddenly Church history is taken off the table.
To give an example, I once debated a Catholic on the concept of the Papacy. I pointed out that First Vatican Council declared that in Matthew 16:18, Peter received primacy over the other Apostles, that the Church has always believed this to be the case, and that anyone who doesn't believe this is anathema. However, this is so demonstrably false that many Catholic scholars left the Church after this declaration. As it happens, there are four historical interpretations of Matthew 16:18: Peter was the rock, Peter's confession is the rock, all the Apostles were the rock and Christ is the rock. It turns out, the interpretation that Peter's confession is the rock (which happens to be my current interpretation, too) was the most popular among the Church Fathers. The minority interpretation, which Saint (i.e. very much not anathema) Augustine held to*, was that all the disciples were the rock.
The Catholic went rather sheepish when this was pointed out. After making dogmatic statements like "suffice it to say for now that the Apostles were granted the Authority from Christ Himself, with St Peter as the leader" and "indeed Our Lord gave to the other Apostles what He gave to St Peter, but Peter was first, and acknowledged as such, thus Primus Inter Pares", he eventually left me with "Good luck to you. I have better things to do than throw pearls before swine."
What happened? Normally, Catholics love discussing Church history. Apparently, this isn't the case when you can show the Church Fathers weren't entirely on board with the Catholic Church. When that happens, you're a swine who isn't worth wasting time on. This feels like watching a big cat bullying a small cat, until the dog shows up.
The truth about Catholicism is that even the one strength they have becomes weakness when used correctly. Catholicism has always been weak against the Bible, and so appeals to Church history have been used in an attempt to compensate for such a weakness. But even when it comes to Church history, Catholicism is only strong when the non-Catholic isn't. Both Biblically and historically, Catholicism fails. Therefore, it is only fair to say that Catholicism is wrong, and Catholics need to repent.
Of course, ultimately, this has always been the case. Many heretical sects have existed for as long as, if not longer than, the Catholic Church. Some of them were even running around while the Apostles were still breathing. The Judaisers, the Gnostics, even fake Christs, were spreading false messages 2,000 years ago. They can prove their views existed 2,000 years ago. And what did Paul warn the elders of the Church in Ephesus in Acts 20? "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." I repeat, "Also, from among yourselves, men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves".
So now we see that Church history really isn't a discussion we need to have. Church history isn't helpful for Catholics because it's only on their side if you cut out the bits they don't like. It isn't helpful for Christians because it's not authoritative, and it would support a range of false beliefs if we took it to be so. The only sure fire way to determine who is right and who is wrong is by consulting the book that both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge is divinely inspired and 100% authoritative. And we all know why Catholics don't want to have that discussion.
*I have recently learned that Augustine actually recanted this belief. He later wrote, in The Retractions, "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". Therefore, we should add Augustine into the majority category.