When was it?

Answering Protestants ^ | 27 January 2014 | Matthew Olson

[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.

[cloudmountain]

Have you thought much about predestination? God knows all that will occur. For pleas of grace and salvation, do you not think that He could apply our prayers in advance? Plus, for those of us who believe in a "third state" (Purgatory), prayers can be beneficial for those there right now.

Of course God knows what will happen to each and every soul. We DO, however, get many chances to say YES to Him.

Creating a soul that is going to say NO to Him is a mystery. I don't pretend to be able to unravel or comprehend the mysteries of God.

There ARE Protestant denominations that don't believe in Purgatory. I don't know which ones there are. There are thousands of Protestant denominations and their tenets differ. There are dozens of Catholic denominations (orthodox and such) but they can't hold a candle to the THOUSANDS of Protestant denominations. And, honestly, it doesn't matter to me what they believe. Not my job to judge them!

Thank goodness we don't have to sort all that out. Our good Lord will do that!

I went on-line to see how many Protestant denominations there are and who they were. Boggles, Ah say, BOGGLES the mind. (Foghorn Leghorn)

[dartuser]

In Revelation, Jesus had different messages for different churches

Isn't curious that if the church at Rome was primary in ANY way ... that Rome was not one of the seven churches addressed by Christ in Revelation 2 and 3.

[Faith Presses On]

One other thing about something specific said in this article. How could the selling of indulgences not have been grievously wrong, including according to Catholic belief. The Catholic Church teaches that there isn’t assurance of salvation, but unconfessed mortal sin puts one in Hell. Only God can know about all unconfessed sin. Selling indulgences presumes to know that a believer is saved, but only in Purgatory temporarily to be cleansed from their sins that weren’t mortal. That contradicts Catholic doctrine.

[matthewrobertolson]

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. - xone

So, what doctrinal change did Pope Leo X make that serves as a worthy reason for leaving his authority? Not a one. Protestants judge him for disciplinary problems.

Consider this: The pastor of a Protestant community notices a budget shortfall. It turns out that some of the volunteers have stolen money on his watch! He moves to correct the error, though maybe a little more slowly than others might like, and everything is set right. Should the pastor be blamed? And even if he should, should that necessarily negate all of his teachings?

[xone]

Isn't curious that if the church at Rome was primary in ANY way

Especially since the writer of Revelation was 'Catholic'. When church wasn't mentioned, one would have thought he'd inquire.

[cloudmountain]

"official pronouncements"?
I haven't heard anything from Pope Francis about it. If he did mention it, we would have heard about it MANY, MANY, MANY times in our daily homilies, in the bulletins, the religion classes (for adults) and in our local Catholic newspaper.

We have DAILY readings of Scripture:
1. USUALLY the first reading is from the Old Testament.
2. The second reading is USUALLY from one of St. Paul's letters.
3. The gospel is read. (Then the homily.)

All readings are completed in a three-year cycle. Then, we repeat the same three-year cycle. MUCH (but not every single word) of the Bible is read in that three-year cycle.

I do readings during the week and I was very nicely given a pronunciation guide to those Old Testament names. VERY handy.

[matthewrobertolson]

Over a long time I’ve seen that I can’t accept much of essential Catholic doctrine because it twists or ignores God’s Word. For example, it calls Mary sinless and says it was necessary, for Jesus to be without sin (even though it was the Holy Spirit who placed Him in Mary’s womb, somehow) , for Mary to have been conceived without sin. It doesn’t explain how Mary, though, could be without sin if *her* parents weren’t. The Catholic belief on Jesus and Mary requires a sinless lineage going back to Adam and Eve themselves, and neither were sinless.

Unless one can find an instance of her sinning, they should assume sinlessness automatically. But anyway, she is the New Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant, in case you are unfamiliar with it, held objects like the Ten Commandments. It was so precious that, in 2 Samuel 6, God strikes down Uzzah, who mishandled it. Mary held God-incarnate. Imagine how much more precious she must be!

And Mary's sinlessness does not require a special lineage. It only requires the active intervention of God.

[Faith Presses On]

The answer is to ask God what the truth is and totally surrender to Him. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths.”

[xone]

Answered in #103.

Consider this: The pastor of a Protestant community notices a budget shortfall. It turns out that some of the volunteers have stolen money on his watch! He moves to correct the error, though maybe a little more slowly than others might like, and everything is set right. Should the pastor be blamed? And even if he should, should that necessarily negate all of his teachings?

And that's analogous to Leo X, please, even Catholics of the time decried him as a wastrel, course, once he was dead.

[matthewrobertolson]

Oh, cool! What were you doing in Saudi Arabia?

I would like to get into the habit of daily Mass at some point, but I don't drive (long story) and the three parishes in this town (all close together) are a one-hour walk away. I could do it, but I haven't yet.

[xone]

All well and good, to get those readings from the ‘book of information’. The ‘official pronouncements’ would be the Catholic Church proclaiming it as the Word of God, when fellow Catholics refer to it openly as a ‘book of information’. That’s on of the main disconnects between Catholics and Protestants.

[JMS]

And this is why I am not a Catholic and you are. I do not rely on doctrine but on faith and the guidance from the Bible rather than the guidance of canon law and tradition. I respect your right to your beliefs and I’m glad you respect mine. I also have had a deep exposure to Orthodoxy and respect their beliefs while not subscribing to them. I am comfortable attending a Mass in either of those churches but hold to my own beliefs.

[cloudmountain]

Catholics refer to it openly as a ‘book of information’

I have never, ever, ever, ever heard the Bible called a "book of information."
I have never, ever, ever, ever heard ANYONE call it that either.
YOU are the first one I've EVER heard telling me about CATHOLICS calling it a "book of information."

All I've ever heard it called is the: Word of God.

Sound to me like some of your Catholic acquaintances need some re-catechizing. Don't you think?

[xone]

I apologize, ‘the Bible is a source of information’, my mistake.

[cloudmountain]

1. Oh, cool! What were you doing in Saudi Arabia?
2. I would like to get into the habit of daily Mass at some point, but I don't drive (long story) and the three parishes in this town (all close together) are a one-hour walk away. I could do it, but I haven't yet.

1. My husband was a mechanical engineer, which means he could do ANY/EVERYthing. He worked for Pacific Gas and Electric.
He worked for ARAMCO in their LNG plant. The engineers there (all foreigners, MOSTLY American) were allowing the BURNING OFF of all the natural gas that comes pouring out of the petroleum wells WITH the petroleum. Saudi Arabia looked like a HUGE birthday cake at night from the air.

Well, those SMART engineers figured that burning off ALL the natural gas was a TERRIBLE waste. So, all the natural gas that came up with the petroleum was captured and liquified. It was then bottled and sold.

Thus, liquified natural gas plants in the KSA. They made a friggin' fortune.

From ONLY the petroleum sales it was figured that in 1983 the King of Saudi Arabia was making a cool one BILLION dollars (petrodollars) every two and a half days.

I cannot BEGIN to fathom how much money that is. Mind you, the petroleum (and with it the natural gas) WILL run out one day. The engineers figured that Saudi Arabia had about another 200 years worth of petroleum in them thar wells.

Also, they haven't TOUCHED their "empty quarter." The Empty Quarter - هيئة المساحة الجيولوجية www.sgs.org.sa/English/earth/Pages/EmptyQuarter.aspx
Overview of the Empty Quarter ... vegetation, and water. Hence, in Arabic it is called 'Ar Rub al Khali' which means the Empty Quarter.

2. Is there no one to give you a lift? Surely there MUST be someone...a teenager, a bored housewife, a commuter.
You might ask the parish priest if he knows someone who could give you a lift one or two days a week. Perhaps you could string together MORE lifts.
--Promise FOOD to the young.
--Promise the moon to the bored housewife. She really just wants someone to LISTEN to her.
--Promise a fill-up to the commuter.

All will turn down your rewards...except the kid. He WILL want his FoodReward. Make THAT huge, warm FRESH chocolate chip cookies.

Hah, for THAT I'd drive you myself!!

[cloudmountain]

I apologize, ‘the Bible is a source of information’, my mistake.

My gawd, you made a mistake. You are not perfect. :o)
Not a problem!!

[cloudmountain]

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths.”

Sounds right to me.

[xone]

Although, ‘book’ ‘source’, what’s the difference?

[Alex Murphy]

Unless one can find an instance of her sinning, they should assume sinlessness automatically.

And you know what they say about "assume"...

....she [Mary] is the New Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant, in case you are unfamiliar with it, held objects like the Ten Commandments. It was so precious that, in 2 Samuel 6, God strikes down Uzzah, who mishandled it. Mary held God-incarnate. Imagine how much more precious she must be!

Is this how Mary managed to stay a perpetual virgin - God threatened to strike down anyone (including her husband Joseph) who touched her?

[Zuriel]

The keys are addressed here as well:

“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

(I’m sure you have Matt. 28:19 memorized)

And indeed Peter was at the forefront, preaching to the Jews:

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 2:38

Praying and laying hands on the Samaritans (part Jew, part Gentile) that Philip had preached to:

“Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost”. 8:17

And the Gentiles:

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all of them which heard the word.....Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” 10:44-48

So, we see that the Lord had arranged it so that Peter HAD to be present for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the three divisions of mankind.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the church is founded upon Peter?

Do you, or do you not, believe that Mary hears your prayers, and everyone else’s around the world, at the same time (which makes her omnipresent)?