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 the world who gets baptized whether he/she believes in Jesus or God or not, is a Christian and a member of the Body of Christ...
That couldn't be farther from any biblical truth but apparently that is what Christian is to a Catholic...
As to the “keys,” it seems they have to do with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, the basic gospel belief (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Luke 24:45 tells us that Peter and the apostles had their understanding opened to them by Christ. In the next verse, He said:
Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the third day. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”
- which would be accompanied by the promise of the Spirit, “endued with power from on high,” at Pentecost, Luke 24:46-49.
At Jerusalem, at Pentecost, Peter, with the rest of the apostles backing him, made that tie-in to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection when the Jews asked them, “Men and brethren, 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”
- didn’t Christ command Peter that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem?” Here they were at Jerusalem, and the promise of the Spirit, “power from on high," had just happened, THIS was the time and place for Peter to use, for the first time, the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Peter tying it to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
Paul made the same tie-in in Rom. 6 -
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
Notice, “buried” with Christ, then raised up from the watery grave of baptism by the resurrection power of the Spirit, are “the likeness” of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
THESE are the keys, not the papal “chair” at Rome.
-----------------------------------------------------
Catholic denominations rites
A caveat: There is a difference between Catholicism, which is a branch of Christian theology (as opposed to Reform or Evangelical), and Catholicity, which is much harder to describe but pertains to the unity of Christian believers in Christ Jesus.
A denomination is technically Catholic if it is in full communion with the Papal Office in Rome; ie, they recognize Francis I as the successor to Peter the Apostle. The Latin Rite, aka "Roman" Catholic, is the most well-represented in the U.S., although there are small communities of the other Eastern Catholic churches present.
Within the 6 rites of the Catholic Church (which include 23 "particular Churches"), there are doctrinal differences, but none view the other as apostate or lesser, and all view all Catholics as equal brethren and sestren. However, it is common to hear the churches accuse one another of causing the doctrinal schism in the first place. Note that this is not the same as heresy - it's a stronger-sounding term for "you disagreed".
Wikipedia notes (but does not cite) that about 98% of Catholics are of the Latin Rite, and only about 10% of the so-called "Eastern" Christians are Catholic, which the majority considering themselves either Orthodox or, more recently, Reform.
Note that there are churches calling themselves Catholic but that do not recognize the Papal Office in Rome - sedevacantists are one group, and there are the so-called "Old Catholics", etc. These are not considered by the Catholic Church to be Catholic in the denominational sense of the word (likewise, the 23 Catholic Churches aren't considered "Catholic" by the sedavacantists, etc). Note that several of these self-described Catholic churches adhere to their own Pope (considered anti-Pope by the Catholic churches in communion with the Papal Office in Rome).
Within those Catholic churches in full communion with Rome, it's not correct to say "denominations" - it's more apt to call them "rites" mostly because the substantial differences are not in theology but in ritual, ie the form of the Mass and some doctrines. The disputes arose over acceptance of the authority of the various councils (ie, Trent, Jerusalem, etc.)
Among the 6 Catholic Rites, none will disagree on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the necessity of Baptism, sacramental practice, etc. But in some of the Eastern Rites, priests are allowed to marry, and the sacraments are given at different times (ie, Maronite infants receive Baptism and Confirmation, while Latin Rite - "Roman Catholic" to most of us - only baptizes infants, leaving confirmation for a later date).
The Latin Rite is the only so-called "Western Rite". The Eastern Rites and their attendant particular Churches include:
*Alexandrian:
--Coptic Catholic and Ethiopic Catholic
*Antiochan
--Maronite
--Syriac Catholic
--Syro-Malankara
*Armenian
--Armenian Catholic
*Byzantine
--Albanian Byzantine Catholic
--Belarusian Greek Orthodox Catholic
--Bulgarian Greek Catholic
--Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Krizevci
--Greek Byzantine Catholic
--Hungarian Greek Catholic
--Italo-Albanian Catholic
--Macedonian Greek Catholic
-Melkite Greek Catholic
--Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
--Russian Byzantine Catholic
--Ruthanian Catholic
--Slovak Greek Catholic
--Ukrainian Greek Catholic
*Chaldean
--Chaldean Catholic
--Syro-Malabar
Most of these smaller groups of Catholics are in the middle/near east and are fading. I went to the Holy Land a few years ago with former Baptist minister, now Catholic, STEVE RAY and his lovely wife, Janet. He knew ALL about these smaller Catholic communities. He said that some of the communities are so small that they are just FAMILY GROUPS that hold the "rite" together. Once the family group disappears, and eventually they usually do, that "rite" will no longer exist beyond the pages of history.
.
Thanks for the opportunity to do this research. My brain needed the work. :o)
The sad thing is that there are no longer any significant American oil companies...The new found American oil will not be any cheaper for us...They will rob us just like the Saudis do...
And instead of just giving our oil to these oil companies, I'd like to see the public get paid for our oil just like they do in Alaska...
God hears and answers prayer, but had to wait until Gabriel came back from earth with Mary's response? I hope He wasn't pacing. Weak.
It's a no-win for us Americans.
We love our warm homes in cold winters.
We LOVE our cars. Can you IMAGINE Los Angeles county without every single one of their many, many, many, many, many, many freeways JAMMED bumper to bumper 24 hours every single day of every single year?
The thought appalls.
--There would be IMMEDIATE medical emergencies from people PASSING OUT from, gag, fresh freshER air.
--There would be INSTANT unemployment problems for all the gas station jockeys, tire companies, auto repair, car insurance companies, car wash places, auto supplies, drive in theaters, drive-through fast foodies, detailers, car painters...the list is ENDLESS.
What WOULD all those Mexicano pochos do without their Charp Chevies cruising the boulevards lookin' at the beautiful muchachas? Aye, Dios mio!!!
The world we know would be turned UPSIDE DOWN.
IMO that's a lousy place to start. It's Wikipedia, for crying out loud - anybody can write anything they want about anybody else. Case in point: The Whore of Babylon. Many sections of the article tell me that the Whore is the Catholic Church in general, and the papacy in particular. Should I believe what it says? Why not? I'm supposed to believe the "protestant denominations" article. Why not believe the other, also? After all, it's on Wikipedia!
A denomination is technically Catholic if it is in full communion with the Papal Office in Rome; ie, they recognize Francis I as the successor to Peter the Apostle. The Latin Rite, aka "Roman" Catholic, is the most well-represented in the U.S., although there are small communities of the other Eastern Catholic churches present.
Within the 6 rites of the Catholic Church (which include 23 "particular Churches"), there are doctrinal differences, but none view the other as apostate or lesser, and all view all Catholics as equal brethren and sestren. However, it is common to hear the churches accuse one another of causing the doctrinal schism in the first place. Note that this is not the same as heresy - it's a stronger-sounding term for "you disagreed".
They hold a couple things in common, they fight over others, and yet they believe that each other are fellow Christians. How is this any different than Protestant denominations that hold to common creeds, i.e. the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, etc?
“Read a little History of Catholicism in the book, “A Woman Rides the Beast” by Dave Hunt.”
That’s not history. I am a Church Historian. Hunt’s book is little more than a dishonest screed of half-truth, falsehoods, misrepresentations and outright fabrications. I have had a copy since it was published and have shown how it is dishonest online before. Here’s my brief review from Amazon.com from 6 or 7 years ago: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1REGXYSHUSPG7
One should not assume Mary to be sinless. The Bible says “there is none that does good, no, not one,” and “all have gone astray.” And if intervention by God is needed to keep her from original sin, then if you don’t believe that it’s been revealed whether or not that intervention happened, that leaves the assumption that Mary also shared the guilt of original sin and Jesus was Her Savior. I’m sure you’re aware, too, that this is a doctrine that only gradually was adopted by the Catholic Church.
I agree in a sense that she represents the Ark of the Covenant for the New Testament, but what exactly does that mean? Does everything about the old Ark just simply apply to her because the Old Covenant = New Covenant? But it doesn’t. The “Old Ark” doesn’t equal the “New Ark” any more than “the Law” equals Jesus. Of course, she *could* possibly have those points in common with the Old Ark, but mere possibility is not conclusive. So much Catholic belief seems to operate on “it’s possible so it must be true.” Cont’d.
Cont’d. But we know with the Old Covenant, the Law, it was obey it or die without mercy, and the Old Ark shared that character, which was that sin can’t be in the presence of holy God. In short, what conclusively proves that Mary was without sin, and secondly, what bearing does that question have on *the Gospel*?
It also doesn’t hold that Mary’s sinlessness not depend on lineage but intervention by God? If Mary only needs God’s intervention, then why isn’t that same argument good enough for Jesus, the Son of God Himself? It’s simply illogical. The Catholic Church says Mary needs to be sinless because IT concludes that God’s intervention through the Virgin birth isn’t enough for *Jesus* to be without sin, but then God’s intervention is enough for Mary to be sinless, though born of two sinners. *Logic* doesn’t support that conclusion.
It also seems to me that the Catholic Church says some things while doing differently. One example would be saying it doesn’t teach the worship of Mary and “the saints” while it clearly does. If you’d explain worship to some little children and asked them about what the Catholic Church teaches, they could tell you the truth on it. I’ve got Catholic radio on right now. They just said that the “glory of Mary” would be too much for us, much less the glory of God. The Rosary addresses Mary as “our life, our sweetness and our hope.” Mary was a blameless woman, without doubt, and “blessed among women,” but she was Jesus’ earthly mother and not on par with His Heavenly Father. Jesus is “my life, my sweetness and my hope” and no mere creature can share any part of that.
Changing names in confessional conversion is common. Saul Paul is an obvious example.
The church is built upon a common confession that Jesus is lord.
Jesus gives Peter no ecclesiastical standing. Jesus mocked the hierarchical deliberations of the disciples.
Paul and john seem to address their writings to a world of believers apart from papal succession. Peter also seems unaware of his privilege in New Testament writing.
I’m not sure there is a case for the original status of Peter as pope.
Yes, yes...I am your leader. Perhaps I should make it a "hashtag" while I'm at it. What do you think buddy boy?
Just for starters:
It helps to know Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and even Latin.
It helps to know geography, history, anthropology, metaphysics, rational psychology, art history, architecture, biology, metallurgy, literature, poetry, music...
Anti-intellectualism is never an asset.
Since Purgatory was not what Paul was discussing, it isn’t surprising that he doesn’t mention it at that point.
I don’t think you know much about the concept of Purgatory. People in Purgatory are in the state of grace, and are in the presence of God.
So, do it yourself and quit your bellyaching.
It helps to know geography, history, anthropology, metaphysics, rational psychology, art history, architecture, biology, metallurgy, literature, poetry, music...
It helps what??? The bible isn't written to intellectual linguists...One doesn't need to know any of that stuff to know the God of the scriptures...There is nothing in those things you listed that will help you find purgatory in the scriptures...
That's a little different twist on what other Catholics have said about purgatory here at FR...So where is purgatory??? What about the fires of purgatory and the pain and suffering???
**It’s like asking where Mary gets the money to pay for the variety of costumes she has worn for her apparitions in the past century.**
There have been some she didn’t have to pay for. Like the salt stained image under that overpass in Chicago, or the burnt crust image on that grilled cheese sandwich.
What do I think? I think it's hilarious that Catholics would covet what other Catholics freely bestowed upon me!
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.