Protestant opinion on where Roman Catholic Church went into apostasy?

[ltwin]

Henry VIII did make himself the figurehead of the Church of England when he broke away from the Romish (?) Church, which did occur before the Reformation…

Is this factually correct?

Henry VIII broke from Rome during the Reformation. But he didn’t start the practice of identifying the Catholic Church with Rome. That had already happened because the Pope was the bishop of Rome.

 

[sainteriksrose]

So Henry VIII didn’t dis the Church, he simply broke away just because…

Why, again?

 

[historyfan81]

the pope didnt anull his mary

 

[sainteriksrose]

Slavery is not an invention of the Church.

It is a result of man’s inhumanity to man.

If humankind was obedient to God, there’d be no slavery or any other injustices. But that is not the case, and is why God found it necessary to be born a Man and build a Church to help guide us back to Him…

Which is something we all should be looking forward to!

 

[po18guy]

Regarding the thread title…

Where did our Lord prophesy the apostasy, or the gates of hell prevailing?

 

[historyfan81]

kind was obedient to God, there’d be no slavery or any other injustices. But that is not the case, and is why God found it necessary to be

never said it created it , "tolerated it " as in slaves respect your master for the sake of it , since in jesus will give you eternal life.

and the catholic church in the middle ages and early modern period not only tolerated advocated for it and allowed catholics to enselave other men

 

[sainteriksrose]

Within Protestantism’s short existence, as it turned 500 years old relatively recently, where do we read in the Bible that it’s okay to behave as it did during the Salem witch trials?

Along with how it treated the people of this nation when it arrived here.

And thanks in advance for the chapters and verses where Jesus said such actions towards others are okay with Him.

 

[commenter]

“If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.

If one had asked an early Christian if they support Sola Scriptura, they would have said Of Course Not. The proof for a single magisterium, rather than a magisterium in every city, is the emergence of a single, tiny New Testament canon.

Many Christians lived in cities that had their favorite, “home town” canon of scriptures, different from the rival city down river; perhaps an epistle addressed to them.

The fact that they accepted a single, tiny NT canon suggests what they thought about a single central magisterium. Those Christians who did not accept the single central Magisterium and its canon are today regarded by Catholics and Protestants as heretics.

 

[historyfan81]

oh i agree , but the canon is not proof of a central papal supremacy, (since the magistermuim dicactates that Pope ex cathedra has higher authority than the councils) , since the develpoment
was with him or with out him
since

1. the councils that dicated the canon aside from the council of rome where under the authority of some one else .
2. like mentioned before the filioque constroversy was not about theology it was about the pope putting himself above the authority of the councils and the bishops saw this as him oversteping his authority as first of equals

 

[commenter]

the canon is not proof of a central papal supremacy,

The single, and tiny, NT canon points towards a single central magisterium. A “Protestantized” early Church would likely have produced many NT canons, or else a single inclusive canon with a few hundred books.

Pointing towards “councils” doesn’t fully explain the process since we he Magisterium chose which councils (name removed by moderator)ut were authoritative, and which not.

 

[historyfan81]

i agree there was a central authority in the pope that is undenibale that is called papal primacy

but papal primacy is not papal supremacy .

and like i mentioned papal supremacy is the only argument that protestans can say is a later addition made by the catholic church since the evidence for it being so is so overwheliming that even some catholics historians and theologians agree

and the evidence against it is few and not really solid poting to the canon is not an example of papal supremacy as the canon where dictated by councils, and the pope only recognized them . again this not papal supremacy but primacy

example this

The Council was presided over by Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople, assisted by the other three eastern patriarchs or their representatives. Pope Vigilius was also invited; but even though he was at this period resident in Constantinople , he declined to attend, and even issued a document forbidding the council from preceding without him (his ‘First Constitutum’).

The council, however, proceeded without the pope to condemn the Three Chapters. And during the seventh session of the council, **the bishops had Vigilius stricken from the diptychs for his refusal to appear at the council and approve its proceedings, effectively excommunicating him personally .
Vigilius was then imprisoned in Constantinople by the emperor and his advisors were exiled. After six months, in December 553, he agreed, however, to condemn the Three Chapters, claiming that his hesitation was due to being misled by his advisors.

if papal supremacy existed this event would have not happend or gone the way it did and not so against the pope
or in some cases councils against the pope (see fourth Ecumenical Council)

, same with the filioque, beacuse if papal supreamcy was there since the begining and the orthdox church would have not split since the main reason of the split was the pope abusing his authority

however some protestans use this to show all catholic traditions are latter aditions that evolved over time

and no that is just a hasty generelaziation fallacy.

again iam not saying the pope had no power i just said papal supremacy did not exist (not the way we know it today) and what they had is papal primacy , the evidence is there .

 

[commenter]

At what point, for example, what decade, do you (or any posters) think Sola Scriptura became an authoritative method of interpretation of Scripture?

 

[historyfan81]

in the reformation defenlty any one who claims sola scriptura predates martin luther is lying

 

[ltwin]

Within Protestantism’s short existence, as it turned 500 years old relatively recently, where do we read in the Bible that it’s okay to behave as it did during the Salem witch trials?

Catholics tried witches too. That wasn’t just a Protestant thing. Catholics own that too.

Along with how it treated the people of this nation when it arrived here.

Are you talking about Native Americans? Catholic treatment wasn’t stellar either.

 

[commenter]

in the reformation defenlty any one who claims sola scriptura predates martin luther is lying

It seems to me the 1500s is somewhat late in history of Christianity

 

[historyfan81]

s to me the 1500s is somewhat late in history of Christianity

i know i never claimed luther is rigth here, i just pointed out some protestant arguments and said the only ones that where valid is the church fathers would never do this and papal supremacy not being an early concept and evolving over the centuries

 

[sainteriksrose]

No chapter and verse from sola Scriptura? Which is Latin btw…

Please research the lives of Saint Kateri Tekakwitha and Venerable Pierre Toussaint. And check out the miracle at Fatima, which occurred in the last century.

Because while (some anyway) Protestants have been busy swatting at gnats and swallowing camels, picking and choosing the parts of authentic Christianity they’re going to adopt from Catholicism, they are missing our Lord’s continued guidance through the Church He actually built.

 

[brianjmc1]

Gang,
I’m the original poster… I appreciate EVERYONE that took the time to respond!!!

Please try NOT to mud sling.

I simply wanted a Protestants view, not Catholics and Protestants proving their point. I personally have become a “better” or should I say, a more knowledgeable Catholic, Thanks!!! to my Protestant brother’s and sisters…

Catholics and Protestants need to take off their respective “my religion” glasses and look at all sides. Every single follower of Christ should look to the ONE TRUTH, because there is only ONE TRUTH.

Be well!
Brian

 

[mcq72]

its a historical concensus the church was pacifist in these times (ie first to 4th century) said by their words and profesionals like Professor of Theology at Wheaton College writing that "literary evidence confirms the very strong internal coherence of the Church’s non-violent stance for the first three centuries.

It is ironic that as soon as the civil authorities stopped persecuting the church, the church began using civil authority to enforce orthodoxy.

 

[mcq72]

Within Protestantism’s short existence, as it turned 500 years old relatively recently, where do we read in the Bible that it’s okay to behave as it did during the Salem witch trials?

Obviously they were not “pure” enough, or did not “shake” enough off of the church they came out of (Catholicism, and it inquisitions, and use of civil authorities to force conformity since Nicene Council.)

As to where in the bible did they (we, even Catholics) get such justification, not fully sure except that indeed they surely did so.

I would warn against hasty judgements and applying todays circumstances to past situations…I partly understand some of their justifications. Walk a mile in their mocassins before judging?