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.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Bullet hit the bone, huh? I rarely see threads and writings where Protestants are desperately trying to discredit the RCC. With a few extremist exceptions, we generally just pass a catholic church, think it’s Christian, and think no more about them.
On the other hand, we are treated to nearly daily articles written by Catholics. Long and boring ones. They are tedious, and read like supreme court briefs in a securities fraud case.
And they are all designed to use Queeg-like geometric logic to finally PROVE that protestants are all wrong, bad, and in outright rebellion against God.
Yes,,, you are the obsessed chicks. Take our photos down. We are not taking you back! It’s over between us! (but if you’re nice, we can be friends,,,ok?)
We VENERATE Mary and the saints. We ADORE God.
Prayer is a way of communication with God or the saints. As least that is the Catholic definition. What some people may THINK Catholics are doing is a different story. Look it up; that is what prayer is: communication with God and the saints.
I pray to my patron saint, St. Anne, and I pray to Mary to ask them to intercede for me, us, whomever. It's simple COMMUNICATION, nothing more. Sometimes I THANK them too.
Mary has NEVER, ever turned me down for what I have asked for. I've only done it a couple of times in my entire life...for something I REALLY, REALLY wanted.
“Indulgences simply remove the temporal punishment due for past sin . . ..”
I must search my Bible for the source of this teaching, having heretofore been trusting my God-granted faith in the Christ and His vicarious atonement to ensure my salvation, my daily sins, past and future, notwithstanding.
You have pretty much nailed it. Personally I would add the elevation of the Bishop of Rome from first among equals to a Pope with king like temporal powers, but that is a small quibble.
I can’t point to any one moment and shout THERE! THERE IS WHEN THE GREAT APOSTASY OCCURED! but that doesn’t stop me from agreeing that by the time of Luther the Catholic Church had strayed pretty far and was in dire need of reforming.
It’s just a shame that the Catholic hierarchy refused to work with Luther and Melancthon and the rest, and did not get started on their own reforms until after the schism had become permanent.
““So are you denying that it was a practice of the Catholic Church at the time to sell indulgences?”
Absolutely.”
And yet, it was a practice of the Catholic Church to sell indulgences, straight from the Pope himself.
“Pope Leo X (11 December 1475 – 1 December 1521), born Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, was the Pope from 1513 to his death in 1521. He was the last non-priest (only a deacon) to be elected Pope. He is known for granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter’s Basilica”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X
“Leo X, the pope in 1517, needed funds to complete the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Leo entered into an arrangement that essentially sold indulgence franchises that allowed the franchisee to retain about half the funds raised by selling indulgences in return for sending to Rome the other half for Leo’s construction project. To encourage indulgence sales, Albert of Brandenburg, one winner of the privilege of selling indulgences, advertised that his indulgences (issued by the pope) came with a complete remission of sins, allowing escape from all of the pains of purgatory”
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...dulgences.html
“Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. 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; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.”
“The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. . . . Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm
Is it time for a grilled cheese sandwich already?
It’s an observation. I am simply noting the behavior I observe. I see daily threads where RCC types post long tomes as to the insanity of anyone being a protestant.
Most share the overthought, vindictive, condescending tone found in dumped girls. It’s also seen in cults like scientology or islam where “apostate” thought is bitterly attacked.
I think it’s a self defense technique. If the one who departed is “proven” to be malevolent, wrong, evil, erroneous, hardheaded, etc,,, then the dumped one must be right and good, and need never look inward.
It's certainly an impressive title, doncha think? Got it from a Catholic, I did. Someone must not have gotten the memo.
“And, I’m sorry, but did the Church outright move against the practice?”
How often does the very slow moving Church move against anything? And the answer is yes - at the Council of Trent.
“When was there an encyclical against the practice and how were the priests who did it punished?”
1) Encyclicals were rarely ever used for disciplinary issues. I can’t think of any, in fact, at the moment.
2) Those who illegally sold indulgences were not merely priests. I think your anti-Catholic prejudice is manifesting itself in a silly anti-clerical form. Also, I do not know what ecclesiastical censures were used against those who sold indulgences. If you read John Tedeschi’s The Prosecution of Heresy, you’ll see he mentions at least one inquisition case against someone for selling indulgences but I no longer recall if he mentions the punishment involved.
“I am genuinely asking, because I really know nothing about the way Rome pronounced them wrong, and immediately wiped them out.”
If you believe “Rome” could ever “immediately wipe...out” anyone, then you have an even deeper prejudice than it first seemed.
Every day I check Free Republic for its anti-catholic postings, doesn’t take long.
“It’s certainly an impressive title, doncha think? Got it from a Catholic, I did. Someone must not have gotten the memo.”
Is there a Catholic Saint out there in charge of getting memos to people? Wyrd needs to know.
You may have a point....
“I am sorry, but the whole praying to saints thing is just... well... it smacks of polytheism honestly.”
Not to orthodox Christians.
“I am not going to pray to some plastic statue of a dead saint.”
None of us does that. May I suggest something to you? If you don’t want to come across as a moron bigot, go ahead and attack what we ACTUALLY do or believe rather than accuse us of praying to “some plastic statue of a dead saint.” To make up something like that just makes you look ignorant.
“You may not be bothered by the whole Mary worship thing...”
Well, it’s hard to be bothered by something that isn’t happening. We don’t worship Mary. Anti-Catholic bigots, however, will go ahead and claim it anyway.
“but you wanted to know what bothered protestants, so I told you.”
No. I didn’t want to know. I just complained about your complaints. And mine, unlike yours, were all valid.
“I am sure Mary was a nice lady, but point me to where in the scriptures it says that good Christians are imbued after death with magical God like powers to hear the prayers of literally billions of people. I am not buying it. Only God is Omnipotent.”
What’s impossible with God? Nothing. If God wants His saints - united with Him in Heaven - to hear our prayers to bind us closer to Him He can do it. There’s no “magical” power involved at all. It’s simply grace. If God can arrange for saints to judge the fallen angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), what can’t He do for us?
Speaking of the article at the top of the thread....
“I have been going to a Baptist church for 20+ years and I don’t buy for one second that dancing or drinking in moderation is sinful.”
You should either find a Church that teaches the truth, or be more truthful with your church. Otherwise, you’re just wallowing in double–mindedness of a sort.
“Speaking of the article at the top of the thread....”
No, I was clearly speaking to whom it was posted.
And isn’t this blog pimping? Posting your own blog?
I made my point. You cannot post what you posted without being seen as dishonest.
Clement clearly did not believe in justification by faith alone:
“Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30.
“And yet, it was a practice of the Catholic Church to sell indulgences, straight from the Pope himself.”
False. No document ever found shows any pope ever selling or proposing the selling of indulgences. That’s simply a fact.
Example:
“granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter’s Basilica”
GRANTING. DONATED. = NO SALE.
“Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg...”
Read the Protestant compiled Documents of the Christian Church (edited by Protestant Henry Bettenson), 4th edition, page 195 on which you’ll see the instruction letter from Albishop Albrecht which shows no sale of indulgences was to take place. If someone had no money to donate (and donation means there were to be no sales), he was to be simply given the indulgence.
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.