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.
When the church started to gentilize Christ and in turn gentilize the Jewish believers. Paul said that those who are circumcised let them remain circumcised. That’s when apostasy started creeping into the church. I read somewhere that Pope Benedict said if you met Jesus you have met Judaism. Unfortunately the Protestant participate to in the apostasy.
Ohhhhhh,, I see. It wasn’t “selling indulgences”. It was “Granting them” in return for “donations”.
Tony Soprano would be proud. We don’t “extort”, we give “protection”, and the business “expresses it’s appreciation” with money. LOL
Why no officer,,,, I did not pay her for sex, I was donating money to her, and she was showing her gratitude!
“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.”
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
So either someone forged the writings of Clement, or Clement flat out lied, didn't he??? Either way, why are you quoting a false doctrine???
Someone should let New Advent know:
“Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the large treasure left by Julius II was entirely dissipated in two years. In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. 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, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined. The pope’s income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats. On his unexpected death his creditors faced financial ruin. A lampoon proclaimed that “Leo X had consumed three pontificates; the treasure of Julius II, the revenues of his own reign, and those of his successor.”
A little further:
“The most important occurrence of Leo’s pontificate and that of gravest consequence to the Church was the Reformation, which began in 1517. We cannot enter into a minute account of this movement, the remote cause of which lay in the religious, political, and social conditions of Germany. It is certain, however, that the seeds of discontent amid which Luther threw his firebrand had been germinating for centuries. The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. 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.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm
“you’ll see the instruction letter from Albishop Albrecht which shows no sale of indulgences was to take place.”
Can you please provide the letter with the alleged order not to sell indulgences? And why would Leo offer it in the first place and then declare that he will keep one half the returns, if the selling of indulgences was refused? And why would Albrecth, in his zeal, simply want to give money to the Pope which he gained through selling indulgences?
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. Marianism is a cancer in the Catholic body.
Not nice to laugh on these threads, I knew this was coming. LoL. Clintonian 500 years BBC (Before Bill Clinton).
Global warming would have been much worse if there had not been so much cool weather. Explain that, your assertion is similar.
Your arguments are doctrinal and not historical. 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. They clearly were not banned by all the Popes since they were originated by a Pope.
Infallibility is God’s and the Holy Spirit’s but you are saying that the Pope has a special direct line to God in “narrow circumstances” but your analogy to fact is idiotic. The Pope claims infallibility based on a belief that he receives the Word of God because of his office. In fact, he is a priest and a man and therefore inherently flawed. You are making the analogy between a fact i.e. that George Washington was the first President of the United States and the doctrine that the Pope has special insight into God’s will that no one else has. This is a matter of faith and doctrine and not fact. It’s your right to believe it and mine to not.
The infallibility of the Bible is not the same as the infallibility of a man - the Pope unless you believe that the Pope is more than a man. You are equating the Pope with the Holy Spirit. I don’t think you will find a Pope who claims this.
Please go back to the original article which seems to attack Protestants as the origin of this discussion. It was not Protestants attacking the Catholic Church.
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.
You are free to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin to your heart’s content but the true threats to Christianity are those who would divide us, the atheists, Muslims and Communists. I personally accept Catholics as Christians and hope for the same in return.
‘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.’
Good advice. That’s why I’m not Roman Catholic
But I assume this means you are a firm supporter of every policy and position of the current pope?
As to the original post- it’s somewhat ridiculous to assume that there must be an ‘aha’ moment where Catholicism went from being ‘right’ to ‘wrong’
As early as the first century, there was error in the church. People were introducing their own ‘flavors’ of Christianity
Things tend to gradually slide. There may be defining moments, mile markers that stand out during the slide, but things tend to slide
Error sometimes enters an institution like flipping a light switch, but more often it seeps in slowly
The old question of a man standing at the top of an ornate staircase at a formal party- he slips and falls- people start laughing- at the bottom of the stairs he is found to be dead——at which stair did the fall cease to be funny
It’s a pointless question.
It doesn’t matter which proverbial straw broke the camel’s back- just that we must at some point recognize that the back is broken
Luther need not be 100% right to raise points where the Catholic church was 100% wrong
Protestants need not know when where and why error slipped into Catholicism to recognize error- we need simply to recognize and purge the error
Unfortunately, we all; Protestants and Catholics tend to then believe the institutions which we belong to are and remain error free- at least doctrinally
It is a vanity and a dangerous one- one that results in convoluted circular logic and dug in heels
If there is one practice of Catholicism that will ever exclude me from its ranks, it is the presumption of being right all the time about all things doctrinal.
I find the same tendency abhorrent in many Protestants- particularly Calvinists
If I were to take Vlad’s advice of finding a church where I agreed with everything, I would be a church of one
So, I find a church that is moving in the same general direction as I believe we should be moving
I join in
I contend in the arguments I feel are important- to either hold course or change direction
And if the direction of the local body violates my conscience on an issue I find core; I change local bodies
It’s not a perfect system- but it beats the other options available to me at this point
So Jesus, who was not married and had no children, was disobedient to God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” So Jesus was a sinner.
Where does this claim come from—that it was Peter’s confession and not Peter that was the “rock” on which Jesus would found the Church?
Jesus says “on this Rock I will build my Church”—and changes Simon’s name to Peter. I.e., to “Rock.”
“You are Rock. And on this Rock I will build my Church.”
There isn’t a scintilla of a suggestion of a hint in the text that the “rock” is the confession. Especially since Jesus is CHANGING Simon’s name to “Rock” at that very moment.
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah...I am changing your name to Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.
If Jesus had wanted to say what many Protestants claim, why didn’t he avoid confusion by saying: “Blessed are you Simon...You are Todd, and on this rock I will build my Church”?
....Yet the Christian faith is growing again in the global south nations.
According to Philip Jenkins, the Christian faith is growing again as well:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3252981.Philip_Jenkins
That’s a short list, there’s far more.
Paying to shorten your stay in purgatory is another, when purgatory doesn’t even exist.
List is long, and there are so many anti biblical teachings in Catholicism, I just wish more people would read and see.
Jesus does say the way is narrow.
I’m sorry your husband is gone, I lost a great grandfather not long ago, it’s not the same as a husband obviously, but I loved him very much. I’ll see him one day again.
The trouble with your definition of prayer is that it’s not biblical. Praying for one who’s gone won’t have an affect, whatever has happened has already happened. We need to focus our efforts on praying for the living that they may be saved.
Christians are human and of this world - knowledge/belief/faith in Christ will not override our basic nature (Faith of a mustard seed...).
While I'd like to know where GPH gets these excerpts from too, (I doubt he has stacks of hard copy books containing all the ECF's writings but that's just me) this question seems largely irrelevant, IMO.
What I find interesting is that you, GPH are commenting on the following section from the OP:
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".
You quoted the portion in bold and then proceeded to post excerpts from the writings of those mentioned to "prove" they all held some kind of paleo-Protestant viewpoint (I guess) about the topics of predestination, final perseverance, sola fide, and the immutability of God's will.
The point is why? Why would you do that and not address the overarching point of the OP of this article and tell us all, though the Fathers (can I call a man "Father"?) when the Catholic Church fell into apostasy? That is the point of the OP after all and you yourself ask, "The real question is, when did the Romish church apostatize from the faith?"
So don't leave us in the dark; tell us when it happened. Or do you agree with the JW's and the Mormons, that there pretty much never was any church to begin with, and only until people like Matt Slick and his website CARM came along, we now have resurrected the "faith of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Or are we predestined to Hell anyway, and thus not worth spending the time actually discussing the point of the thread?
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.