Protestant opinion on where Roman Catholic Church went into apostasy?

[George720]

Or am I completely wrong and Protestantism did not grow out from the RCC and theReformers are the original church and had nothing to do with RCC?

The purpose of the Reformation was to get back to the “sole” authority of Scripture

Luther, I should think, desired correction of the Church’s excesses and errors…
And the RCC did not take kindly to correction by a lowly monk…
It’s authority was not to be questioned by anyone…

Hence the illegitimate birthing of the Protestant Reformation from the RCC…
Illegitimate because not blessed nor by the will to the RCC…
Birthed because it came out of Her alone…

The issues between the Protestant Reformation and Rome are those of an illegitimate daughter arguing with her mother - Hence the animosity and vituperation… It is a family fight… Indeed a notzo civil war… With many casualties…

The RCC has admitted to most of Her excesses - Maybe even all of them… And is seeking peace with Her Reformers… To little avail, as the wounds run deep… And we must remember that we are all children in this fallen world, and thereby vulnerable to childish errors…

Our fallen human condition is so very broken…

geo

 

[George720]

Apostasy means to totally reject Jesus Christ.

That must be why no one likes to be called an apostate…

The literal meaning, of course, is to “stand apart from”…

Implied is to make one’s self different from the rest…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Luther, I should think, desired correction of the Church’s excesses and errors…
And the RCC did not take kindly to correction by a lowly monk…
It’s authority was not to be questioned by anyone…

While that is common misconception, Luther’s private correspondence actually shows that while on the outside he acted like that, he would call Pope Anti-Christ privately while publicly saying he will submit to Pope’s will as “Christ’s”. Luther also changed dogma every time it suited him. He essentially provoked Peasant’s War by his dogmas about freedom of people and then when Lords started wining he actually told them to kill those “dogs” as he called peasants. Also he caesaropapism he introduced in the West was essentially why Reformation even succeeded. What did Protestant Reformation have that other heretics did not? Support of rebellious princes of Holy Roman Empire. Why? Because Reformation denied Pope, and since Holy Roman Emperor was crowned by Pope, if Pope was indeed evil then there is no need to submit to Emperor. Also taking Church property into secular claws was somewhat favoured (Henry VIII of England basically secured fact there was no rebellion during his Schism- he bribed most powerful nobles).

Birthed because it came out of Her alone…

I wouldn’t say that. After all Luther said he “stands with Greeks” on dogmatics. Protestantism initially also got some hold in Orthodox world- but since Caesaropapism was already functioning there, it did not gain much support from nobles. Devil attacks Church and causes heresies and schisms, it was not as much of a birth as it was damage. Daughters and Sons of the Church are faithful Catholics, and birth is their baptism and/or death.

and as Church gradually recovered from Arianism, it is recovering from Protestant Reformation. In the end, gates of Hell do not prevail against Her.

 

[George720]

George720:

Birthed because it came out of Her alone…

I wouldn’t say that. After all Luther said he “stands with Greeks” on dogmatics.

Well, he was a Roman Catholic monk, and the whole of the failed Protestant Reformation was birthed out of the Roman Communion… Granted, an illegitimate birth, but certainly out of no other Communion than that of the Latins…

The Lutherans sure did not stand with the Greeks… And I will not defend Luther either theologically or dogmatically… But he was not birthed from the Greeks by any standard at all - That Reformer was entirely a product of the Latin Roman Catholic Church…

But I agree with you, rebellions are often bitter and messy…

But they do not catch fire without having something that will burn…

Do you not see the hand of God correcting the excesses of the Latin Church through Luther?

I mean, we sure do for the Russian Orthodox Church in the Russian revolution, and I do in the fall of Constantinople…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Do you not see the hand of God correcting the excesses of the Latin Church through Luther?

Church was trying to reform for centuries but politics and wars prevented that. France would not attend if England did, Germany if France did etc… it was messy. Attempts to reform all failed and then Devil attacked Church through clever heresy… and Church finally had ability to reform because now it was expected out of her. France and Germany no longer boycotted each other at Council of Trent. Church cleansed itself of Kings and Lords who only tried to use Church for profit (because they just became Protestant and boom, no opposition to their actions was allowed). Indeed, God used Devil’s plan against him.

But they do not catch fire without having something that will burn…

That is indeed true.

The Lutherans sure did not stand with the Greeks…

At the beginning they believed they did. Luther believed he had entirely Greek theology… he even copied caesaropapism because he saw benefit from it in Orthodox world. He also thought Orthodox might join him in his campaign against Rome. In the end Orthodox affirmed transubstantiation (in their own words), they affirmed 7 sacraments and affirmed every teaching of Early Church. They stood with Reformers only on Papal Authority.

 

[George720]

The Lutherans sure did not stand with the Greeks…

At the beginning they believed they did. Luther believed he had entirely Greek theology…

His complaints which he nailed to the wall were not Greek, but an affirmation of the individual conscience against what he saw as unjust authority needing to become just… My brain is failing me, but I remember as a sophomore in college reading them and thinking: “He is placing himself against the Church”… And that was back when I was an atheist, and did not know the apostatic division of the Church… All I knew then was that there were “selling of indulgences” based on what I saw as superstitious beliefs that after death people were suffering unbearable torments that could be lessened by giving money to Papal authorities… That these “excesses” needed reform - That the Church should not charge for them - That the prayers were needed… Which I rejected…

He also thought Orthodox might join him in his campaign against Rome.

This is more to the point - The enemy of my enemy is my friend… Not that Luther was a Latin scholastic monk with Greek theology - I have never heard your theory before…

They stood with Reformers only on Papal Authority.

The Patriarch did not “stand with the reformers”… He offered to disciple them in the Faith they did not have… eg The unchanging Faith of our Fathers… But they only wanted endless contentious debate proving themselves right by the Bible, and the Patriarch withdrew from them…

Luther pitted himself against what he saw as the Church - He believed Rome WAS the Church, and elevated himself above it via personal conscience… And at Turbingen (?) the Lutheran theologians only wanted to help their clueless brother, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to see the light of their Bible-theology…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

All I knew then was that there were “selling of indulgences” based on what I saw as superstitious beliefs that after death people were suffering unbearable torments that could be lessened by giving money to Papal authorities…

Indulgences are far more exhaustive topic, but in the end they were a good thing that was abused. Originally indulgences were charity- as a penance some people were supposed to donate money to the poor. Later on people just donated to Church and said “She will feed the poor with that!” … centuries later that got abused.

Not that Luther was a Latin scholastic monk with Greek theology - I have never heard your theory before…

It is quite famous quote that he “stands with the Greeks”- though yes, it was mostly that he stood with what he thought Greeks will support him in… not necessarily with what Greeks really believed. There seems to be a good link. Also it is worth to note that Luther himself might have been officially Scholastic, but during his studies he came into contact with little Scholasticism and even that little was from someone who was excommunicated for majority of his life… in reality Luther had very little knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas or Scholasticism in general.

The Patriarch did not “stand with the reformers”… He offered to disciple them in the Faith they did not have… eg The unchanging Faith of our Fathers… But they only wanted endless contentious debate proving themselves right by the Bible, and the Patriarch withdrew from them…

Yes, I was mostly talking about how only thing they agreed upon in the end was Papacy… not necessarily that they stood together. Wrong wording, my bad.

 

[FollowerofChrist0]

Firstly we would have to know what apostasy means.
apostasy: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.
The belief and the core of biblical chirstianity is that Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. That His death and ressurection are what gives us life and a hope for an eternity with God. I was a catholic before the Lord called me out and I never had an assurance of my salvation. It always was if I had been good enough or done enough to earn my way to heaven. This is totally unbiblical. Secondly, according to the Bible there is ONLY ONE intermediator between man and God and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. As Catholic I remember having saints and virgins for almost every need. This is completely unscriptural. Also Jesus is the one praying for us to the Father right now. And these are just small examples. As some one who is here not to condemn anyone. I ask you to consider leaving your tradition, because that is what being a catholic for me was, and asking God to show you His way. After all, Jesus said: I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me… Have a living realtionship with God thru His son Jesus.

 

[Fauken]

It always was if I had been good enough or done enough to earn my way to heaven.

We don’t deserve Heaven, for one. And we don’t “earn” Heaven. That’s not what Catholicism teaches.

Secondly, according to the Bible there is ONLY ONE intermediator between man and God and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. As Catholic I remember having saints and virgins for almost every need. This is completely unscriptural.

Asking for Saints to pray for us before God is scriptural. Unless you’re telling me praying for other people is un-scriptural.

Jesus is the one praying for us to the Father right now.

So when you go to Heaven you’re going to stop caring about everyone on earth? Who cares about them, you’re in Heaven now?

I ask you to consider leaving your tradition, because that is what being a catholic for me was, and asking God to show you His way.

We will absolutely not leave the Church Christ established which contains the fullness of truth. You sound like you were poorly catechized and do not know what you left, which is tragically common.

Have a living realtionship with God thru His son Jesus.

We do. We see Him in person at Mass. We are a part of His one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

[adf417]

After all, Jesus said: I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me… Have a living realtionship with God thru His son Jesus.

Welcome to CAF FollowerofChrist0. I hope your time here is pleasant.

Can you tell me why do you think all Protestants dont believe or follow what you wrote above and what makes your form of Protestantism the correct form?

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

Church was trying to reform for centuries but politics and wars prevented that

My goodness, that says so much.

Can you imagine that today, that reform, even a revival, would be prevented by politics and war?

 

[mcq72]

We don’t deserve Heaven, for one. And we don’t “earn” Heaven. That’s not what Catholicism teaches.

Poorly catechized then, or a case where teaching is one thing practice another?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Can you imagine that today, that reform, even a revival, would be prevented by politics and war?

Church was somehow under the nation in couple things… especially French Church. If Popes really wanted Council attended by French as well as Germans and England, they had to wait for opportunity. Otherwise enemies in war would not attend the Council. Kings would even forbid their Bishops to attend and in that case Council would not have large effect in said country, Bishops could be executed for treason and number of Bishops from said country would be lessened. Popes just wanted Bishops from different countries to check on different practices and to take into account different cultural views, as well as Church practices that evolved. That’s it kinda.

 

[Billy_Buescher]

According to most protestant (not all), the Church is the people, all the saved are members of the Church. Another belief of a lot of protestant is once saved always saved.

With this, once saved always saved, it would then mean that Apostasy is impossible. If one is not saved, they can not apostasy from something they are not part of.

 

[mcq72]

With this, once saved always saved, it would then mean that Apostasy is impossible.

You make my point that I have in the past, that the CC claims inerrancy in teaching, making tradition a capital T , as God breathed. Impossible to apostate, derail, one iota, not to mention papal infallibility, from the beginning to the end. I call it once right always right.

Similar rationale using promises of God to justify said positions.

 

[adf417]

Similar rationale using promises of God to justify said positions.

Nothing similar at all. One is a teaching and one is a practice of (or failure of practice or bad practice). Until you see the difference in teaching vs practice (one being from God and must be always right and one being of humans which may vary), you may always be confused.

Peace!!!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Impossible to apostate, derail, one iota, not to mention papal infallibility, from the beginning to the end. I call it once right always right .

but CC never claims they did apostate… Protestants do claim that CC indeed did not guard faith in it’s fullness. Protestants also claim OSAS, which kinda contradicts previous claim.

It does make sense that Church would be protected from error by Holy Spirit but individuals would not. It does not make sense that individual people would but Church would not. Church is pillar of Truth, not individual Christians with their private interpretations.

 

[mcq72]

Protestants also claim OSAS, which kinda contradicts previous claim. (that church erred)

It contradicts only if you believe one is saved by perfection, and can never err.

 

[mcq72]

It does make sense that Church would be protected from error by Holy Spirit but individuals would not

I disagree. Not erring is always conditional on being one with the Spirit, both for the individual and the church.

 

[mcq72]

Church is pillar of Truth, not individual Christians with their private interpretations

Ok, how about individuals with un private interpretations?

The church might be a pillar of Truth, but the individual is also the temple of Truth and Wisdom.

Nothing similar at all. One is a teaching and one is a practice of (or failure of practice or bad practice). Until you see the difference in teaching vs practice (one being from God and must be always right and one being of humans which may vary), you may always be confused.

I specified perfection in teaching, not practice. Talking doctrine, as Jesus did, as leaven (bad).