Protestant opinion on where Roman Catholic Church went into apostasy?

[ltwin]

Not quite following you here. The original Church was polycentric (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, et al) yet all were united in faith and essential doctrine. It was comprised of both East and West. Gradually East and West grew apart, with the papal primacy of Rome becoming more clearly defined, but still united, until the schism of 1054. Rome says the Orthodox schismed from her, the Orthodox say Rome schismed from them. Whichever side you take, for the first thousand years, before the schism, “the Catholic Church” consisted of both eastern and western rites, including the Latin Rite.

But for hundreds of years after the schism, the vast majority of Catholics were Latin or Roman Catholics, and this was the time period in which Protestantism emerged. So, the Protestants were making perfect sense when they started referring to Catholics as Roman Catholics, since the Protestants also claimed to be catholic as well. And this was also the usage the Catholic Church itself used when interacting with eastern churches and western heretics.

 

[commenter]

I think we was referring that its wierd that the church who was the persecuted and pacifist became the persecutors in the 4th century

Nope.
An emperor in the fourth century became Catholic. His successors were either Arians or a pagan, in both cases persecuting the Catholic Church. By the time a Catholic became emperor, the empire was weak anyway, the Church didn’t persecute.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Which is what the Sacrament of Reconciliation aka Confession is for…

That way we can know we can receive Him Who is our daily Bread of Life worthily. Every day of the week if we want to, too.

 

[historyfan81]

Theodosius I was a catholic and he made paganisim ilegal in the empire

 

[commenter]

Well that was a catholic theologian

There have been a few million priests in the history of the Catholic Church, as well as countless lay Catholic writers. Some have agreed with the Church, some not. I really have no way of evaluating someone I’m not familiar with.

Rather than quoting a writer you find at random, better to cite some official Church document.

 

[historyfan81]

A random writer who is both a jesuit and a historian ie klaus schatz.

So he is not a random bloke but oh well I Also mentioned the folióque other councils

 

[commenter]

Other non Catholics on CAF build credibility in their argument by citing some official Church document.

Just a suggestion

 

[mcq72]

Which is what the Sacrament of Reconciliation aka Confession is for…

That way we can know we can receive Him Who is our daily Bread of Life worthily. Every day of the week if we want to, too.

Ok.

The parable of ten virgins and their oil lamps refers more to the Holy Spirit, being filled with Him, even baptized with. We are also admonished to be filled with the Holy Spirit daily.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The reverse is true, too. Either way, it doesn’t solve the broader issue.

I mean no harm neither to insult you or your confession, but as Catholics we do not believe your Priests have Apostolic Succession necessary for valid Priesthood and hence can’t consecrate Eucharist validly either. Which is why even if canonical impediments were solved for us, we would simply not receive in your Church unless above was solved. Of course, this is not your view and I respect it, but I just considered it important to remind you of this.

 

[BohemianBrother]

I think if the few differences in doctrine were resolved between Catholicism and Confessional Lutheranism, Lutheran clergy would happily accept (conditional) ordination. Luther himself wrote that he wanted to maintain the ancient Church hiearchy, but he couldn’t. That would be the last issue.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The reverse is true, too. Either way, it doesn’t solve the broader issue.

I mean no harm neither to insult you or your confession, but as Catholics we do not believe your Priests have Apostolic Succession necessary for valid Priesthood and hence can’t consecrate Eucharist validly either. Which is why even if canonical impediments were solved for us, we would simply not receive in your Church unless above was solved. Of course, this is not your view and I respect it, but I just considered it important to remind you of this.

Yes, I know this. I also understand that a Catholic should hold what you’ve said.
You’ll understand that we disagree.

BTW, I found nothing in your post that was insulting. Expressing the teachings of your communion is not insulting to mine.

 

[JonNC]

I think if the few differences in doctrine were resolved between Catholicism and Confessional Lutheranism, Lutheran clergy would happily accept (conditional) ordination. Luther himself wrote that he wanted to maintain the ancient Church hiearchy, but he couldn’t. That would be the last issue.

While “conditional ordination” may be an issue, the intent is true. Not only did Luther write this, it is in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
Further, Lutheran clergy have moved into apostolic succession with Anglicans, Catholic view of their orders notwithstanding.

 

[GKMotley]

Yes, I know this. I also understand that a Catholic should hold what you’ve said.
You’ll understand that we disagree.

BTW, I found nothing in your post that was insulting. Expressing the teachings of your communion is not insulting to mine.

How many times have I expressed that sentiment on this board.

Note: that’s a rhetorical question.

We be of one blood, ye and I.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Jesus, Who said He is the Bread of Life, is offered to those who can and want to receive Him even daily, from His Church…

And this includes His ministers who tend to and feed His sheep as per His command, in hospitals and prisons. Again, every day of the week as in, “Give us this day our daily Bread.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Did the RCC fall into Apostasy from the beginning?

If you were to ask some Protestant scholars, this would probably be the answer they would give. If you read the NT epistles, particularly Paul’s epistles, 2 Peter, & Jude, they either warn that false teachers will rise up in the church, and Jude even states they were already there by the late 60s AD. This was one of the purposes of the NT epistles - to address false teachings in the church. Some Protestants would say, the concept of the “church” gradually changed from the NT model of every genuine believer in Christ, to a hierarchical ecclesiastical model (ie: the Pope & the Magisterium). They would see this as a deviation from what the church was in the first century.

Or am I completely wrong and Protestantism did not grow out from the RCC and the Reformers 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 for doctrine & faith, as opposed to the sole authority of the Pope & the Magisterium. So, while much of Catholicism spilled over into the Reformation (since the purpose of the Reformation wasn’t to protest “everything Catholic”), the Reformation did not actually “grow out from” Catholicism, because their authority was the Bible, not themselves. Luther didn’t even like the term “Lutheran,” but instead preferred “Christian,” which is what believers were first called in Antioch based on the NT.

 

[brianjmc1]

If you read the NT epistles

Weren’t these addressing local church issues and not universal Church issues?

“sole” authority of Scripture for doctrine & faith

there was NO canonized scripture for the first 400 years(20% of Christianity history). Where is the “sole” authority, in the canon scripture(bible)? How did the Church run(400 year from the beginning) without that authority? Were not the Apostles, and then there successors(bishops) teaching authority of doctrine and faith? If not, why were the apostles ever commissioned, why didn’t the Lord just preach to the disciples? why were the apostles given authority and taught separately countless times in scripture?

Thanks,
Brian

 

[TonyB2]

The Reformers were all embittered ex-Catholics (Luther an embittered ex-monk). Thus Protestantism is joined at the hip to the RCC and dependent on it for its own existence.

Protestants have generally claimed that the RCC supposedly became apostate at about the time of Constantine or in the Early Dark Ages - hence the Reformers accepted the validity of the Early Church Councils.

And believed themselves to be restoring the Early Church.

Their quest to do so was sincere, but hopelessly mistaken; since the Early Church was Catholic, not Protestant - it had bishops and a sacerdotal priesthood from the outset.

 

[TNMan]

The early church was catholic, little c. Rome was considered first among equals, but not supreme over the entire church.

That said, I don’t think the RCC is an apostate body. I think the Gospel is shared and sacraments are rightly administered, and where those things happen, there the Church is.

 

[TonyB2]

First among equals ? Yes - for example as arbiter of last resort on questions of doctrine.

Which as I see it, is supremacy - but the only supremacy that the See of Rome claims

 

[brianjmc1]

I think the Gospel is shared and sacraments are rightly administered, and where those things happen, there the Church is.

Which sacraments, all 7, 2, none? This is the quagmire…