How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[lanman87]

Is there any other view that was understood from beginning?

History shows the Symbolic/Spiritual view as being held by those in the Ante-Nicene church, which in the first 300 or so years of Christianity. I would contend that this view was also held from the beginning.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Alright, then one of those views was surely correct and other one was not, as they contradict each other. We can take as authority Bible and majority of Church Fathers to establish which one of those is true.

 

[lanman87]

Alright, then one of those views was surely correct and other one was not, as they contradict each other. We can take as authority Bible and majority of Church Fathers to establish which one of those is true.

The problem with this is that several of those church fathers who held the symbolic/spiritual view are held as Saints by the Catholic church. Hippolytus that I quoted above is an example. Either the church was wrong to declare him a saint because he held the wrong view of the Eucharist, the church is wrong and Hippolytus is right, or Christians have the freedom to have differing opinions and still be considered orthodox (which I believe to have been the case until the 9th Century).

 

[Thom18]

To answer the OP: they can’t. Perhaps I’m less sympathetic than others in this regard, but one can’t reconcile Protestantism with the first millennium of Christianity. This is akin to claiming that the Samaritans were the “true” Jews, and not those who continued to offer sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Padres1969]

I’ve seen it run the gamut. From not caring as it’s not important, to Catholics strayed from the path, to restoration of early church ways, to the church has always been disparate yet unified and that disparate nature simply evolves with time.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

church was wrong to declare him a saint because he held the wrong view of the Eucharist

heresy is not impairment towards Sainthood- especially if not condemned by Church at the time, and if he was not rebuked by authorities while refusing to retract his views. Obedience to Church is key, Hippolytus was not disobedient because there were no such demands from Church towards him. Many people die in error yet are considered Saints. It is unfortunate he held such view, and of course he is not venerated FOR error, but in spite of it.

 

[lanman87]

heresy is not impairment towards Sainthood- especially if not condemned by Church at the time,

This begs the question, if what he was teaching was wrong then why wasn’t he condemned by the church at the time for teaching heresy? Hippolytus is an interesting man. He caused the first church split in Rome because he disagreed with the church on matters of authority but there is no record of him ever being condemned for teaching heresy. Of course, at the end of his life he made amends with the Roman Church. The document I quoted is the one of the most valuable we have in describing the early church practices.

 

[adf417]

The problem with this is that several of those church fathers who held the symbolic/spiritual view are held as Saints by the Catholic church. Hippolytus that I quoted above is an example. Either the church was wrong to declare him a saint because he held the wrong view of the Eucharist, the church is wrong and Hippolytus is right, or Christians have the freedom to have differing opinions and still be considered orthodox (which I believe to have been the case until the 9th Century).

Ianman are you under the impression that the Church considers all saints to have been perfect in their views and opinions? This is certainly not the case. As a matter of fact, there is not one saint that the Church views as being perfect in all matters.

Peace!!!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This begs the question, if what he was teaching was wrong then why wasn’t he condemned by the church at the time for teaching heresy?

Is there record of him being condemned for denying obedience? Church did not condemn those who she already condemned. Even so, not condemning anything is far from acknowledging it as true. Sometimes it took Church much time to act, not perfect thing but nevertheless such was practice. Church did condemn that belief after all, during Reformation. Perhaps those writings of Hippolytus were not known, or they did not influence enough people etc… many possibilities. Church has never condemned anyone who held transubstantiation though, and far more people held that belief, including Christians pre-dating Hippolytus.

 

[neophyte]

Otherwise put, why would God allow the full truth of Christianity to be unknown for a millennium?

I suggest that a better way to put it is “why would God allow an entity that teaches absolute falsehoods about the faith to parade about publicly for nearly 1,500 years, pretending to be His Bride, the Church, and leading untold millions into hell?”

 

[JonNC]

To answer the OP: they can’t. Perhaps I’m less sympathetic than others in this regard, but one can’t reconcile Protestantism with the first millennium of Christianity. This is akin to claiming that the Samaritans were the “true” Jews, and not those who continued to offer sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Funny. I have no problem reconciling my beliefs to the early Church. I don’t see how universal jurisdiction reconciled with it, which is why I’m not Catholic or Roman variety.

 

[steph03]

Writing as en Ex-Protestant (and not reading the multiple of answers above) just putting in my two cents. Catholics and Protestant have a very different approach when it comes to THE CHURCH. Catholics see the Church as instituted by Christ and leadership given to Peter and the Apostles and is continuing to this day. They see this as both a very spiritual AND physical thing. Catholics see the early Church fathers and the following as their own. Protestants on the other hand tend to view the church as “where two or three (or more) are gathered in His name”. It is a more spiritualized approach to the church Than the physical way Catholics view it. So they generaly have no issue with the “between Christ and the Reformation” as they generaly see their individual church as part of THE CHURCH (which unites all true believers of different denominations).

 

[lanman87]

Here is a short Encyclopedia Britannica article on him.

 

[lanman87]

Ianman are you under the impression that the Church considers all saints to have been perfect in their views and opinions? This is certainly not the case. As a matter of fact, there is not one saint that the Church views as being perfect in all matters.

I have know idea the criteria used for sainthood. I just find it ironic that someone says

The bread,which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him;

and he became a Catholic saint and yet when my Pastor says almost the exact same thing on Sunday morning he is teaching heresy. Something about that just doesn’t add up.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

and he became a Catholic saint and yet when my Pastor says almost the exact same thing on Sunday morning he is teaching heresy. Something about that just doesn’t add up.

so was St. Hippolytus. It’s just that Church has not denounced it publicly at that time, so he was not heretic out of disobedience.

 

[Norseman82]

Getting back to the original question…

There is a strain of Christianity that holds that after Constantine took over and invented the Catholic Church, the “real Christians” went underground and preserved the original King James Bible (sic) until the time of the reformation and they re-emerged as a version of the Baptists. I believe this is the theme of the book “Trail of Blood” (I’ve never read the book myself, I’m just going by posts anti-Catholics have made on other forums that have cited that book).

 

[JonNC]

Getting back to the original question…

There is a strain of Christianity that holds that after Constantine took over and invented the Catholic Church, the “real Christians” went underground and preserved the original King James Bible (sic) until the time of the reformation and they re-emerged as a version of the Baptists. I believe this is the theme of the book “Trail of Blood” (I’ve never read the book myself, I’m just going by posts anti-Catholics have made on other forums that have cited that book).

I think that represents a very small group. I certainly find it to be ridiculous.

 

[Delphinus]

I was a Pentecostal evangelical. The time period was just simply never discussed. We talked about and revered “the Early Church” before Constantine as a true church in passing, but again it was NEVER discussed in any kind of detail.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

And get banned from their forum lol.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

People exist – baptists, who honestly think their denomination was started by John the Baptist. You cant make this stuff up.