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.
So everyone in purgatory may be sitting poolside with an umbrella drink next to an empty swimming pool???
It has been stated by gazillions of Catholics that (by perverting 1Cor 3:13 by misquoting it) Catholics will go thru the fire...NOW, your pope says that isn't true??? So what does your pope say purgatory is???
If the Great Apostasy had ever occurred in the past, there would be no belief in Jesus Christ today. The Great Apostasy is yet future.
1Co_6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not
I am a pope for the protestants, and you can be my trusty protestant-pope-mobile driver.
You planning on becoming a Protestant? Or are you just desiring to rule over them?
A clear, well-reasoned, and nearly convincing response. Thanks so much for the intolerant remark at the end.
You are like a manic-depressive. Do I need to try to talk you back from each swing in each direction?
1. I forgot. I guess your post wasn't that interesting to me. OR I am dealing with early onset of senility.
2. Hahaha. Good one.
Are you letting me choose?
I am NOT subtle. If I had wanted you to choose I would have said: YOUR CHOICE. Or I would have made it a question and put a question mark at the end of the query.
....I am NOT subtle. If I had wanted you to choose I would have said: YOUR CHOICE. Or I would have made it a question and put a question mark at the end of the query. .
You posted that you've resorted to guessing re a self-diagnosis of your posting issues. If you're left with guessing, I think we all know what the correct answer is.
I know which I'd choose.
'Fraid not Tex.
"Or are you just desiring to rule over them?"
I don't rule, I lead. I have that kind of personality -- where I go, others naturally follow. In my opinion it makes me the ideal man to be the first pope for the protestants.
“Thanks so much for the intolerant remark at the end.”
You wrote this: “Marianism is a cancer in the Catholic body.”
My response was no more intolerant than yours. At best perhaps we’re both intolerant. At worst your hypocrisy has blinded you to your own intolerance. Which is it?
It’s called an opinion, sort of like believing that political liberalism is anathema to a free society. By and large, I respect the Catholic faith. You guys do a lot of good around the world, but I hold that the Bible says there is but one redeemer, and that is Jesus. If you want to elevate Mary to that position, that’s your call, but I’m entitled to think otherwise. I don’t believe that merits being called ignorant and bigoted.
“You guys do a lot of good around the world, but I hold that the Bible says there is but one redeemer, and that is Jesus.”
Your comment implies we don’t hold that there is “but one redeemer, and that is Jesus.” We do. And no definition of a co-redeemer actually changes that. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.
“If you want to elevate Mary to that position, that’s your call, but I’m entitled to think otherwise.”
Are you thinking? When you conclude that a definition of Mary as co-redeemer means Jesus is not the one and only redeemer, then I can’t see why you believe you’re thinking. That is NOT what any of the proposed definitions mean.
“I don’t believe that merits being called ignorant and bigoted.”
Well, again, when you conclude that a definition of Mary as co-redeemer means Jesus is not the one and only redeemer, then I can’t see why you believe you’re thinking. That sounds much more like ignorance and bigotry.
“Co-” means “in the same degree,” as in co-owner or co-signer. Designating Mary as co-redeemer implies, no matter how you parse words and quibble over definitions, that Mary has the same responsibility for redemption (i.e., the act of saving people from sin and evil) as Jesus, which, admittedly, does not YET has the force of a papal declaration, perhaps because not one word of scripture gives Mary that role. Catholics must fall back on church tradition (and human tradition, you may recall, is one of the things that Jesus specifically spoke against) to justify that designation. Sorry, but this protestant isn’t drinking that bilgewater, and if relying on scripture makes me a bigot, I’ll wear that crown of thorns gladly.
““Co-” means “in the same degree,” as in co-owner or co-signer.”
False. Never rely on a secular dictionary for a religious word’s definition - especially when it came from another language. “co” in this case is from “cum” meaning “with”.
Like so: “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.””
http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php
Well, Vladimir, you got me! Your quiddity has convinced me to never argue word meanings with a master of equivocation. At least I can take comfort in the fact that I never resorted to contumely.
“Well, Vladimir, you got me! Your quiddity has convinced me to never argue word meanings with a master of equivocation.”
It’s your own sciolism that’s the problem. Also, the correct definition of a word is not a matter of equivocation.
“At least I can take comfort in the fact that I never resorted to contumely.”
And what did you resort to? You posted obviously false information as if it were true. You implied that Catholics wanted to place Mary on a level with Jesus when we do not. Your bigotry is your problem.
Bigotry? Nah, Vlad, some of my best friends are Catholics. LOL! In fact, the best man at my wedding was a Catholic and a life-long friend. If there’s any bigotry in this exchange, it stems from your arrogant presumption that Protestants are ignorant. All from me; now you can have the last word.
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.