Posted on 01/27/2014 7:57:57 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
For Protestantism to make much sense, the Church must have, at some point, abandoned the truth and become apostate. Otherwise, Protestantism has no license to exist. But when was this "Great Apostasy"? Protestants offer varying opinions, but none of them hold up to scrutiny.
Was it right after the deaths of the Apostles?
A view most supported by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is that, after the Apostles, the Church quickly fell into apostasy. This would be a massive blow at both God's promise to guard His Church (Joshua 1:5; Matthew 16:18) and all of the doctrine mentioned hereafter. But if this were true, would not one of the disciples of the Apostles have spoken out? We have writings from many of them, including Pope St. Clement I, St. Barnabas, St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius of Antioch. None of them mention a "Great Apostasy". But even if we indulge the other side and admit the possibility that even these men fell away, we still have early documents and creeds (like the Didache) that were probably formulated under the authority of the Apostles. Because Christians continued to be in accord with these extra-Biblical teachings, we know that they must have been in accord with the true Church.
Was it at the time of Constantine?
A semi-popular view is that Constantine corrupted Christianity by encouraging "pagan" elements and demanding a decision from the First Council of Nicaea. This is the view that I come into contact with most often, but it is also the most problematic. If the Church became apostate by 337 (the year of Constantine's death), then the Biblical canon – which only really started to be compiled by St. Athanasius in 367 – may be wrong: we would have no assurance of its infallibility. Also, on top of that, all later theology would be necessarily nulled.
Was it during the Middle Ages?
The possibility of an apostasy in Medieval times seems far-fetched, too. This theory revolves, primarily, around hatred for some "bad" popes. Rather than focusing on doctrinal issues, proponents of this theory typically resort to character defamation. Many attack the Crusades, which tamed a fanatic Islam, and such. But in this period, literacy rates increased, art flourished, the university system developed, laws were better-codified, and the Bible became more accessible to lay people [1, 2]. The only seemingly objectionable doctrinal development was Pope Boniface VIII's declaration, "Outside of the Church, there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins", but even this originates with St. Cyprian! The teaching relates to: 1) the fact that baptism (whether by water, blood, or desire) brings one into the Church (even if done within a Protestant community), because the sacrament was entrusted to Her and She allows anyone with the right intent to perform it, and 2) the importance of conscience and the dangers of apostasy. Nothing worthy of damnation here!
Was it just before the “Reformation”?
The idea of a “restoration” being needed just before the “Reformation” also seems improbable. This common idea is based on the "selling" of indulgences [1, 2, 3] (Martin Luther attacks the practice multiple times in his Ninety-Five Theses), but is mostly due to a misunderstanding. Again, the Protestant understanding usually relies on the assault of characters: people like Johann Tetzel are demonized -- perhaps rightfully -- for abusing the system. But this abuse was not a doctrinal problem of the Church; rather, it was a disciplinary problem of men. Indulgences simply remove the temporal punishment due for past sin -- they are not a "Get out of Hell free" card -- and even when they were "sold," they required some sort of penance. Indulgences only have a salvatory effectiveness (remittance of time in Purgatory) if the recipient is already destined for Heaven. So, it would seem that the fuss is all about nothing.
In conclusion, I see none of these options as likely.
---
Make sure to join me for a Live Chat with Shaun McAfee on Thursday, January 30 @ 8 PM Eastern time / 7 PM Central time. It should be interesting.
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
For those that believe in a third state?
You can believe that, but it’s not the truth.
I’m frustrated, because I don’t know the best way to turn Catholics to the truth.
I’ve said before too, that I think many that call themselves Catholic aren’t indeed Catholic because of what they said they believe. Those that truly are need to hear the truth though. I’m unapologetic about that.
We need to be following Jesus’ teachings carefully, and be wary of false prophets.
Where am I getting these strange ideas?
Well, I get my information from the bible, of which purgatory is not in.
I also understand that Christ’s sacrifice for me was perfect and doesn’t need any other “assistance”.
I’ve accepted him into my heart and I’m forgiven, I don’t need to wait around in some place to purge out.
I’d suggest forgiving people and asking for forgiveness before you leave your physical body, I suggest that because the bible teaches it.
Jesus said it’s done, meaning death has been defeated, the new covenant is here, and if you follow his teachings you will be saved.
I don’t understand it, we don’t need a ton of theologians to discuss this, the salvation of the gospel is simple, a child can do it, and it’s even mentioned that’s how we should come to him.
What is it that I'm supposed to do for myself? Teach you something?
My bad this post was to #5.
Things such as Islam are why Christians need Earthly power. I can’t decide if you think something along the lines of God will save you from them or you would not be in need of saving if Islam held all current Judea-Christian political power? At first I thought that was a trollish (it is not) post but after reading some of your other postings I am very curious of what makes you tick. What would you, or perhaps God have us do? I think it is clear fruitful multiplication requires it. One only need look to the middle east to understand what they would make of the world if given opportunity.
What about those Kurds in Turkey? Do they count?
“Why? As far as I can see nowhere in what you quoted did it say the Church ever authorized the sale indulgences.”
Read it again:
“Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions”
And, further:
“To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter’s”
The purpose of preaching the plenatry indulgence was for the purpose of “[making it possible to discharge these obligations” which further was “promised [to] all those who contributed to the new St. Peter’s”.
“If you mean Albrecht’s letter of instruction, look it up.”
You referenced a book, which is not available for free online. I then googled Albrecth + letter of instruction, and then tried tying it to Pope Leo, and only found an article talking about a rhinoceros that someone named Albrecht gave as a gift to Pope Leo X.
**Well, I get my information from the bible, of which purgatory is not in.**
Purgatory
Lk 12:58-59; 1 Cor 3:15; Mt 5:25-26 ... temporary agony. Heb 12:6-11 ... God’s painful discipline. Mt 12:32 ... no forgiveness ... nor in the age to come. 1 Pet 3:18-20 ... might be purgatory (limbo?). 1 Pet 4:6 ... preached to the dead. Rev 21:27 ... nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Heb 12:23 ... souls in heaven are perfect. Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:13-14 ... “extra” suffering. 2 Mac 12:43-46 ... sacrifice for the dead. 2 Tim 1:15-18 ... prayer for Onesiphorus for “that Day.” 1 Jn 5:14-17 ... mortal/venial sins
Sure and if you like your Pope you can keep your Pope. The cult of Catholicism will survive my opinion, which is why I don't bother with the cult leaders.
Says she who FREQUENTLY posts reams with no hint of where it was copied and pasted from. Are you the posting minder now?
And BTW..GPH did provide the source for EVERY single one of the quotes he used. You just have to READ the post. Hint...the source is shown after the quote in parentheses (i.e., Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch. 5). See, not sad at all!
First of all, since Purgatory exists only until the General Resurrection—i.e., there are no BODIES in Purgatory—all talk of flames or any other physical phenomena is purely poetic. For the same reason, how the souls in Purgatory experience time is unknowable and unimaginable to us.
Pope Benedict himself said several years ago that he did not believe that the reality of Purgatory corresponds to the lurid depictions of the sufferings of the Poor Souls in some literature. Since the souls in Purgatory are in the state of grace, there is no warrant for speculations that depict them as practically suffering the torments of the damned!
There is nothing in the Church’s teaching on Purgatory that in any way detracts from the truth that all grace is made available to us because of the sacrifice of Christ. The grace deriving from Christ’s sacrifice operates in England, Japan, France, Senegal, and Purgatory.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/where-is-purgatory-in-the-bible/
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/purgatory.html
Either/Or thinking. Nobody said that a child cannot have salvific faith in Christ. But when it comes to understanding what the authors of Scripture intended to say, anti-intellectualism is no asset. The more knowledge is brought to bear, the better.
Those are not talking about purgatory, read them myself.
If a person has a hard slant to one way, then maybe a person can construe that.
If you can do me a favor and read this, I know it’s a bit long, and tell me what you think, or if you believe the RC teachings this article is talking about.
http://www.truthfulwords.org/articles/rctruth.html
“Read it again:”
I did. It says “raising money” - NOT selling indulgences.
It says, “ preached ... contributed” - NOT selling indulgences.
It says, “preaching ...contributed” NOT selling indulgences.
you wrote:
“You referenced a book, which is not available for free online.”
Then buy it. I did.
“I then googled Albrecth + letter of instruction, and then tried tying it to Pope Leo, and only found an article talking about a rhinoceros that someone named Albrecht gave as a gift to Pope Leo X.”
Then your online search skills need work.
“But I assume this means you are a firm supporter of every policy and position of the current pope?”
So you’re claiming those Baptists who don’t drink and avoid dancing are doing so as a POLICY and not as adherence to moral DOCTRINES? That’s not what they’ve told me. I don’t have to believe in ANY policy of any pope. I only have to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church. I can oppose the plans and policies of any pope. I cannot oppose the infallible teachings of the Church. I know the difference. You apparently don’t.
“Your arguments are doctrinal and not historical.”
Nope. That’s why I demand evidence from history from those who make the accusation that the Church sold indulgences. I have yet to be shown any such evidence by anyone.
“The Catholic Church did indeed sell indulgences whether or not you call them donations in kind or sales they were not just given away without remuneration.”
Again, false. The Church never sold indulgences. Unscrupulous people might have, but the Church never did and in fact officially opposed the sale in its canon law.
“They clearly were not banned by all the Popes since they were originated by a Pope.”
Again, false.
“The Bishop of Rome was first among EQUALS among the Bishop, not their Pope or Pontifex Maximus so it was not unusual to seek his guidance in disputes but not in terms of having to follow his edicts.”
Again, you might want to read Soloviev’s book. He was Russian Orthodox and he clearly knew more about the subject than you appear to.
“Oh, for Pete’s sake, there has long been a movement in the Catholic Church to make Mary co-redeemer, elevating her to the level of Jesus.”
Here are the problems with your comment:
1) Mary as co-redeemer would in no way elevate her to the level of Jesus. That idea is directly rejected in the formulations put forward for a co-redemptrix definition. See below:
Objection 1:
Calling Mary a “Co-redemptrix” places her on an equal level with Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of God, making her something like a fourth person of the Trinity, a goddess or quasi-divine goddess, which is blasphemy for any true Christian.
The term “co-redemptrix” is properly translated “the woman with the redeemer” or more literally “she who buys back with [the redeemer].” The prefix “co” comes from the Latin term “cum” which means “with” and not “equal to.” Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ, in the redemption of the human family, as manifested in Christian Scripture.
With Mary’s free and active “fiat” to the invitation of the angel Gabriel to become the mother of Jesus, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Lk. 1:38), she uniquely cooperated with the work of redemption by giving the divine Redeemer his body, which was the very instrument of human redemption. “We have been sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10), and the body of Jesus Christ is given to him through the free, active, and unique cooperation of the Virgin Mary. By virtue of giving flesh to the “Word made flesh” (Jn. 1:14), who in turn redeems humanity, the Virgin of Nazareth uniquely merits the title Co-redemptrix. In the words of the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta, “Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix - she gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us.” [1]
The New Testament prophecy of Simeon in the temple also reveals the suffering, co-redemptive mission of Mary in direct union with her Redeemer son in their one unified work of redemption:
“Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary, his mother, ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and will be a sign of contradiction, and a sword shall pierce through your own soul, too” (Lk. 2:34-35).
But the climax of Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix under her divine son takes place at the foot of the Cross, where the total suffering of the mother’s heart is obediently united to the suffering of the Son’s heart in fulfillment of the Father’s plan of redemption (cf. Gal. 4:4). As the fruit of this redemptive suffering, Mary is given by the crucified Savior as the spiritual mother of all peoples,: “Woman, behold your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘behold, your mother!” (Jn. 19:27). As described by Pope John Paul II, Mary was “spiritually crucified with her crucified son” at Calvary, and “her role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” [2] Even after the accomplishment of the acquisition of the graces of redemption at Calvary, Mary’s co-redemptive role continues in the distribution of those saving graces to the hearts of humanity.
The earliest Christian writers and Fathers of the Church explained Marian co-redemption with great profundity in simplicity in the first theological model of Mary as the “New Eve.” Essentially, they articulated that as Eve, the first “mother of the living” (Gen. 3:20), was directly instrumental with Adam, the father of the human race, in the loss of grace for all humanity, so too Mary, the “New Eve,” was directly instrumental with Jesus Christ, whom St. Paul calls the “New Adam” (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-48), in the restoration of grace to all humanity. In the words of 2nd century Church Father, St. Irenaeus: “Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” [3]
In light of her unique and direct cooperation with the Redeemer in the restoration of grace for the human family (cf. Gen. 3:15), Mary became universally known in the early Church as the “New Mother of the Living,” and her instrumental co-redemption with Christ was well summed up in the succinct expression of 4th century Church Father, St. Jerome: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.” [4]
Explicit references to Marian co-redemption as Mary’s unique participation with and under Jesus Christ in redeeming or “buying back” humanity from the slavery of Satan and sin is present throughout Christian Tradition. For example, the 7th century Church writer, Modestus of Jerusalem, states that through Mary, we “are redeemed from the tyranny of the devil.” [5] St. John Damascene (8th century) greets her: “Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse.” [6] St. Bernard of Clairvaux (12th century) preaches that “through her, man was redeemed.” [7] The great Franciscan Doctor, St. Bonaventure (13th century), aptly summarizes Christian Tradition in this teaching: “That woman (namely Eve), drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one (Mary) brought us back again and bought us.” [8]
Although there was never any question of the total and radical dependency of the Virgin Mary’s participation in redemption upon the divine work and merits of Jesus Christ in the minds of the Church fathers and doctors, nonetheless early Christian Tradition did not hesitate to teach and preach the unparalleled intimate participation of the woman, Mary, in the “buying back” or redeeming of the human race from the slavery of Satan. As humanity was sold by a man and a woman, so it was God’s will that humanity would be bought back by a Man and a woman.
It is upon this rich Christian foundation that 20th century popes and saints have used the title Co-redemptrix for Mary’s unique role in human redemption, as exemplified in the contemporary use of Co-redemptrix for Mary by Pope John Paul II on five occasions during his present pontificate. [9] “Co-redemptrix” as used by the popes means no more that Mary is a goddess equal with Jesus Christ than St. Paul’s identification of all Christians as “God’s co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9) means that Christians are gods equal to the one God.
All Christians are rightly called to be co-workers or “co-redeemers” with Jesus Christ (cf. Col. 1:24) in the reception and cooperation with grace necessary for our own redemption and the redemption of others - personal subjective redemption made possible by the historic objective redemption or “buying back” accomplished by Jesus Christ, the “New Adam,” the Redemptor, and Mary, the “New Eve,” the Co-redemptrix. http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php
2) Even if Mary were declared co-redeemer tomorrow, Mary would not be God, or a goddess, or worshipped as a God or goddess by Catholics. She would still only be considered a saint, a human being perfected by the grace of Jesus Christ.
“Marianism is a cancer in the Catholic body.”
No, but ignorance and prejudice are clearly a devastating cancer on the body of Protestantism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.