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.
That's because the question itself, and proofs offered, are non sequiturs. Our armchair apologist offers Mormons and Jehovahs' Witnesses as his lead examples, but neither are protestant groups. Our armchair apologist has yet to prove that his assertion that (most/all) Protestants believe a Great Apostasy occurred.
1. Catholics do believe that the Bible is a source of information, but not the only source of information. There are two others.
**There is Apostolic tradition. You can look that up on the website "Catholic Answers." Just a suggestion.
***Also the Pope can speak authoritatively "from the Chair" or ex cathedra on issues of faith AND morality: i.e.: abortion is a sin.
Ex cathedra: The term ex cathedra, meaning "from the throne", is used to designate official pronouncements of the pope intended for a world audience. As a throne or armchair symbolizes the power to teach, the cathedra in this case refers to the teaching authority over the whole church rather than to a chair. According to Catholic dogma, the pope's statements ex cathedra are infallible in matters of faith and morals. In Anglican episcopal governance, episcopal teaching is conditioned by synodical governance, and so bishops cannot be said to speak ex cathedra in this way (although they may jocularly be said to do so).
Also, I go the definition of prayer from Catholic Answers. It's what the Catholic Church tells us Catholics about prayer. We have ALWAYS prayed for our deceased. Always. I don't ever remember NOT praying for them. It has been so much a part of our tradition that I thought it was yet another part the Protestant faiths got from the Church. I am not saying that in a deprecating way, just in an informational way.
2. Also we are taught that praying for the deceased may be of help. Souls may not go immediately to heaven. Some need to be purged of their minor sins. To be purged they go to a place to be purged of those minor sins. Catholics call it "purgatory." Apparently your faith does NOT teach that either.
3. Focusing on the living is good too. This IS our chance to do good and be good.
I don’t believe in purgatory and purging because that implies that Jesus is a liar. Jesus is not a liar. When he died on the cross for our sins and said it is done, he didn’t mean
partially. Purgatory would also mean Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross wasn’t enough. I believe his word and it’s the only thing I will trust. I guarantee you I’m not going to purgatory when I’m done here on earth. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between us and God 1 Timothy 2:5.
The kingdom we should work towards is not of this world. Almost counterintuitivly if we work towards the Kingdom of God through making disciples of all people, like we are commanded, the world becomes a better place.
If we try to take over by way of politics we will lose.
God bless you.
Non sequitur again. Did all the Protestants get together to write and approve the contents of that article? It's telling that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are lumped into the Wikipedia entry, too.
But if the Great Apostasy did not occur then the Church...can be trusted
There is apostasy, and then again there is the GREAT apostasy. Which is it? Again, non sequitur, and straw man to boot. This thread has yet to prove that the Protestant Reformation, and the reformers in particular, were prompted due to their (alleged) belief in THE "Great Apostasy".
When? Do you think that devil waited even one day after Pentecost to start deceiving people about this ‘new and living way’?
He was no doubt using his usual tools of lies, pride, vanity, etc. to build his ‘true church’ within a few months or years of the initial pouring out of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost.
There were thousands of pilgrims there on that day, and probably many with second hand knowledge of the event (weren’t direct witness to it all, but were told in the streets about it). How many went back to their home country having the story inaccurate to varying degrees, and went about saying “I was THERE!”
I call those types of people ‘Ahimaaz messengers’.
Then if the apostasy, great or otherwise, did not occur the Church never fell into error and there was no reason for the Reformation and the resulting division of the church.
Amen - the trick is in staying focused on the Spirit vs. the physical. I feel like Paul when he lamented about doing that which he would not do, and not doing that which he would do - my best efforts suck.
That would make a great tagline!
Andrew knew Jesus was the Christ before Simon did: “He findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” John 1:41,42
“A stone”, not THE stone.
The stone that the builders rejected is become head of the corner. Peter himself declared that Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone of the church.
Andrew knew that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ.
But that isn’t what Peter said. Peter called Jesus the “Son of the living God.” It was that confession that prompted Jesus to give Peter the keys of the kingdom.
Does the distinction between “a” and “the” even exist in Aramaic and/or Greek? I doubt it.
You have been propagandized.
Sometime right before the Reformation. It must be so, as I've been told that Rome moves so slow because of its immense size that it was impossible for it to address and correct any errors of some of its representatives in a timely fashion. In sum, the Great Apostasy (of the time) occurred around of Leo X, was countered by the Reformation as the faithful fled.
Well said, despite the official pronouncements to the contrary. I think some may forget this fact. I know that I do, as I vainly post scripture to no effect.
Would any instance of teachers bypassing the instructions of the apostles qualify as apostacy? Most everyone familiar with Christianity knows Matt. 28:19, and accept it as being labeled ‘the Great Commision’, when actually, all of the Lord’s commission are great. Consider these other great commissions of the Lord to his disciples:
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:15,16
“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”. Luke 24:47
“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20:23
And so in Jerusalem they began to preach. After which convicted hearts enquired: “..Men and brethern, what shall we do?” Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:37,38
Note that Peter commanded repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus FOR the remission of sins. HE DID NOT command eating the Lord’s supper for remission of sins.
So....did Peter get it wrong right from the start? No, he did exactly what the Lord’s commisions instructed.
Anything that differs from that is not the original teaching.
So Peter, instead of Jesus, is the chief corner stone of your church. Peter, and the prophets, say otherwise. Therefore your church’s interpretation fails the test of scriptural proofs.
Nonsense.
The “keys of the kingdom” image comes right out of Isaiah. It means that Peter (and his successors) are the Prime Ministers of the kingdom.
Why do you argue against Catholicism with lies—such as “Peter, instead of Jesus, is the chief cornerstone of your church”? That is just a lie about what the Catholic Church teaches about itself.
What good is supposed to come from an argument based on a falsehood?
This reminds me of all those people who keep posting that “Catholics worship Mary...Catholics worship statues.” You can show them fifty Catholic catechisms from the last 500 years, all of them condemning idolatry, and they just keep posting “Catholics worship Mary...Catholics worship statues.”
When a person argues against Catholicism with bald misstatements of what Catholics believe, all he accomplishes is to proclaim his own intellectual dishonesty.
Sometime right before the Reformation.
So then everything the Church taught and practice up until then was correct?
When Jesus said “It is done,” did that mean that every person who would ever receive his grace had ALREADY received it?
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.