Protestant perspective on Christian history

[AshleyBelle]

First, Merry Christmas to all here at CAF!

I’ve been having conversations recently with several non Catholic Christians, and it seems that there are many different levels of ways that people view the Catholic Church.

Some have been very charitable, and sincerely just enjoy talking about Jesus and their faith. On the other side of the spectrum, others are incredibly anti-Catholic and would rather throw personal attacks and “controversy” stories with other anti-Catholic propaganda tales at me.

Sometimes the lengths people go through to "disprove" the Church astounds me...but I can at least understand apologetics as a passion.. Though I do pray often that I remember Christian charity in these conversations.

My question has to do with a recent “theory” that has been thrown around by a few people in particular, and I am wondering how many non Catholic Christians feel this way about history.

Here is basically what the idea was:

This person explained that while the Catholic Church was busy burning heretics and forcing people to “submit to Rome” that the REAL Christians were out in the world, trying to worship God the “Bible way” praying for their lives. That these Christians have fought the Church throughout history and have been killed any time they have disagreed with Rome.

Wow…that was hard to actually type ><

Please tell me that there are not truly so many non Catholic Christians who feel this way about the Catholic Church and history? Or is it actually a widely held belief?

Catholics, what is your take on this wild accusation, and how would you even BEGIN to have a rational dialogue with somebody who sincerely BELIEVES this?

I hope I have not offended anyone… I really honestly am just wondering how many people feel this way. I promise if you post that you feel this way, I won’t bash you or call you a loony =P But I will try my best to offer what I have learned regarding history in a charitable way…in hopes of sincere dialogue.

Thanks for your replies

 

[Chancellare]

First, Merry Christmas to all here at CAF!

I’ve been having conversations recently with several non Catholic Christians, and it seems that there are many different levels of ways that people view the Catholic Church.

Some have been very charitable, and sincerely just enjoy talking about Jesus and their faith. On the other side of the spectrum, others are incredibly anti-Catholic and would rather throw personal attacks and “controversy” stories with other anti-Catholic propaganda tales at me.

Sometimes the lengths people go through to "disprove" the Church astounds me...but I can at least understand apologetics as a passion.. Though I do pray often that I remember Christian charity in these conversations.

My question has to do with a recent “theory” that has been thrown around by a few people in particular, and I am wondering how many non Catholic Christians feel this way about history.

Here is basically what the idea was:

This person explained that while the Catholic Church was busy burning heretics and forcing people to “submit to Rome” that the REAL Christians were out in the world, trying to worship God the “Bible way” praying for their lives. That these Christians have fought the Church throughout history and have been killed any time they have disagreed with Rome.

Wow…that was hard to actually type ><

Please tell me that there are not truly so many non Catholic Christians who feel this way about the Catholic Church and history? Or is it actually a widely held belief?

Catholics, what is your take on this wild accusation, and how would you even BEGIN to have a rational dialogue with somebody who sincerely BELIEVES this?

I hope I have not offended anyone… I really honestly am just wondering how many people feel this way. I promise if you post that you feel this way, I won’t bash you or call you a loony =P But I will try my best to offer what I have learned regarding history in a charitable way…in hopes of sincere dialogue.

Thanks for your replies

Facts and citations. If there are none, it’s just going to be like a story-telling contest.

 

[John7]

This person explained that while the Catholic Church was busy burning heretics and forcing people to “submit to Rome” that the REAL Christians were out in the world, trying to worship God the “Bible way” praying for their lives. That these Christians have fought the Church throughout history and have been killed any time they have disagreed with Rome.

Please tell me that there are not truly so many non Catholic Christians who feel this way about the Catholic Church and history? Or is it actually a widely held belief?

As a former Protestant, I felt this way especially after having read twice through the popular ‘Fox’s Book of Martyrs’. Don’t know though how widespread the sentiment is.

 

[AshleyBelle]

As a former Protestant, I felt this way especially after having read twice through the popular ‘Fox’s Book of Martyrs’. Don’t know though how widespread the sentiment is.

Thank you for your honesty… I have heard the name of this book tossed around, but I’m not really sure what it’s all about.

I attended a mennonite university, and the little I learned of their faith was that they had a book of martyrs… Is it anything related?

 

[John7]

Thank you for your honesty… I have heard the name of this book tossed around, but I’m not really sure what it’s all about.

Here’s a little bit from Wikipedia,
"For the English Church, Foxe’s book remains a fundamental witness to the sufferings of faithful Christian people at the hands of the anti-Protestant Roman Catholic authorities, and to the miracle of their endurance unto death, sustained and comforted by the faith to which they bore living witness as Christian martyrs. Foxe emphasizes these actions as motivated by the right of English people to hear or read the Holy Scriptures and understand them in their own language, and so to receive their message in their own hearts rather than as mediated through the priesthood. Their valour in the face of persecution is a historical component of English identity.

Roman Catholics often view Foxe’s record of this period as extremely partisan and the primary propaganda piece for English anti-Catholicism. Among other objections, the accuracy of Foxe’s claims regarding martyrdoms under Mary ignore the mingled political and religious aspects of the time period."

I attended a mennonite university, and the little I learned of their faith was that they had a book of martyrs… Is it anything related?

That might be ‘Martyrs Mirror’, not sure.

 

[BrianH]

This person explained that while the Catholic Church was busy burning heretics and forcing people to “submit to Rome” that the REAL Christians were out in the world, trying to worship God the “Bible way” praying for their lives. That these Christians have fought the Church throughout history and have been killed any time they have disagreed with Rome.

This is a large topic.
The Catholic Church did burn heretics and killed them many other ways as well.
There many groups outside of the mainstream church. Most of the material against them is very polemic in nature.
Which group would you want to look at? Even today, the vast majority of information on dissenting groups found on the internet is inaccurate. In fact, when I did a google search on the Paulicians following a recent thread, I was surprised to find almost every site referenced them using the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia.
There is an abundance of information that shows the Paulicians, the vast majority, were not Gnostic. They were not Dualists. But you would never know that reading the internet.
It is such a large topic Ashley…where do you start

 

[AshleyBelle]

This is a large topic.
The Catholic Church did burn heretics and killed them many other ways as well.
There many groups outside of the mainstream church. Most of the material against them is very polemic in nature.
Which group would you want to look at? Even today, the vast majority of information on dissenting groups found on the internet is inaccurate. In fact, when I did a google search on the Paulicians following a recent thread, I was surprised to find almost every site referenced them using the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia.
There is an abundance of information that shows the Paulicians, the vast majority, were not Gnostic. They were not Dualists. But you would never know that reading the internet.
It is such a large topic Ashley…where do you start

I’ve delved somewhat into church history… I’ve read the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ultimately it strengthened my faith in the Church and the Holy Spirit. To read of such terrible things, and yet still the TRUTH remained untarnished. Even in the midst of terrible evil, there were holy saints. And even in the most corrupt times, the Holy Spirit preserved the scriptures and teachings from error.

What is “new” to me…is this concept that the “real” Christians were actually the heretics, and worshipped God the way we’re “supposed to” in hiding and secret… The theory goes on to say that the reformation was actually a movement where true Christianity was able to break free and spread the gospel as it “should” have been.

If there had been a different “true” Christianity, where is the unity in doctrine? What scriptures would they have turned to, considering that the Church is where scripture was read and proclaimed? How would they have even HEARD the good news, considering most people were illiterate for hundreds of years?

There are plenty of inconsistencies, and aside from this “fox’s book of martyrs” I haven’t been able to find support for the idea.

I’m just wondering how many non Catholic Christians sincerely believe this?

 

[joshua_b]

A history and social sciences teacher I had in high school used to say “generalizations without specifics are nothing more than simply hot air”. I have heard this, but have yet to have anyone substantiate these claims. (Not the ones about the inexcusable actions of individuals who were supposed to represent the Catholic Church, the one’s about “real christians” preserving “true Christianity” despite opposition from the Catholic Church).

Where is the historical record to substantiate these claims? I have a very hard time believing that after the death of the last apostle, the Church that they took great pains to found fell into apostasy and heresy, and true christianity basically disappeared from the historical record for 1500 years until God was able to send the second savior fo the world…Martin Luther. If someone is going to claim that the Catholic Church was murdering “true christians”, then they should be able to tell us who these “true christians” were, and provide evidence of what exactly they were being murdered for.

I’m digressing, so I will simply repeat…“generalizations without specifics are nothing more than simply hot air”.

 

[Brian_C]

Are we speaking strictly of English martyrs or of a continuous line of of non-Catholic Christians since apostolic times? The later belief was mentioned from time to time in my Church and I may have at one time believed it but not after any real critical examination. History doesn’t really bear this out. Generally, when I have discussions on topics like this with my Baptist friends, we invariably end up discussing the Bible and its origins. Most truly don’t understand the early origins of Christianity or the Bible.

 

[statimsciens]

Where is the historical record to substantiate these claims? I have a very hard time believing that after the death of the last apostle, the Church that they took great pains to found fell into apostasy and heresy, and true christianity basically disappeared from the historical record for 1500 years until God was able to send the second savior fo the world…Martin Luther. If someone is going to claim that the Catholic Church was murdering “true christians”, then they should be able to tell us who these “true christians” were, and provide evidence of what exactly they were being murdered for.
.

I don’t know about specific claims by contemporary Christians about any period before the 15th century, but Protestants often point to the Lollards and the Hussites as sort of proto-Lutheran “bible believing reformers,” even if Wyclif and Huss would not describe themselves as such.

If you get a better educated conspiricist, they might also point to the Waldensians in the 12th century as some type of “true” church. I think, however, you might run into the method that ANY one the church condemned must have been doing something right. Hence, I get the point that as the church has always condemned heresies, it has always “proven” itself the enemy of the Gospel in some sense (don’t bother asking about Arians, of course, such doctrines seem like givens without historical context)

 

[joshua_b]

Are we speaking strictly of English martyrs or of a continuous line of of non-Catholic Christians since apostolic times? The later belief was mentioned from time to time in my Church and I may have at one time believed it but not after any real critical examination. History doesn’t really bear this out. Generally, when I have discussions on topics like this with my Baptist friends, we invariably end up discussing the Bible and its origins. Most truly don’t understand the early origins of Christianity or the Bible.

I am speaking specifically to a continuous line of non-Catholic, “true Christians”. If these people were being killed for preserving true Christianity, then it should be able to be shown who these people were and what beliefs it was they were being killed for.

 

[puzzleannie]

believe what?
point of poll?

 

[joshua_b]

I don’t know about specific claims by contemporary Christians about any period before the 15th century, but Protestants often point to the Lollards and the Hussites as sort of proto-Lutheran “bible believing reformers,” even if Wyclif and Huss would not describe themselves as such.

If you get a better educated conspiricist, they might also point to the Waldensians in the 12th century as some type of “true” church. I think, however, you might run into the method that ANY one the church condemned must have been doing something right. Hence, I get the point that as the church has always condemned heresies, it has always “proven” itself the enemy of the Gospel in some sense (don’t bother asking about Arians, of course, such doctrines seem like givens without historical context)

This is what I was trying to get at. I find it very interesting that whenever I try to find information on any of these groups that are touted by historical revisionists as “true Christians”, I find quite a bit of doctrine and theology that I don’t think many fundamentalist evangelicals would really like to be identified with. It’s almost like they are trying to cling to ANYTHING that could possibly substantiate this claim. Also, the Waldensians hit the scene in the 12th century. Theology and beliefs not withstanding, what happened in the 11 centuries prior? Again, history itself just doesn’t seem to give much credibility to this line of argument.

 

[Ruthie]

I have a copy of Fox’s Book of Martyrs, which was included in my Bible study software. A quick look at it (maybe 20 minutes) shows that he does cover martyrdom starting with St. Stephen.

He seems to believe that the Church was just fine until the 11th century, when what he calls the “papal persecutions” began.

As Foxe himself died 16 years before Elizabeth I did, I suppose he can be forgiven for not covering Catholic martyrs of that time. But he does make it plain that, as far as he was concerned, the Catholic church was some kind of abomination.

He covers no Catholic martyrs of the time after the “Reformation.”

In the name of charity, I will say that his vilification of the CC, and his leaving out of Catholic martyrs, could have been dictated by political expediency, and fear for his life.

Chapter XVIII and those following it could not have been written by Foxe, since he was dead long before the Toleration Act (mentioned in the 1st paragraph) was passed in 1689. (That act still excluded Catholics.)

May God bless all His creatures this Christmas Eve,

Ruthie

 

[Zooey]

Are we speaking strictly of English martyrs or of a continuous line of of non-Catholic Christians since apostolic times? The later belief was mentioned from time to time in my Church and I may have at one time believed it but not after any real critical examination. History doesn’t really bear this out. Generally, when I have discussions on topics like this with my Baptist friends, we invariably end up discussing the Bible and its origins.** Most truly don’t understand the early origins of Christianity or the Bible**.

:sad_yes:

I was given a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (by a Baptist who was anxious to convert me). I read part of it…You know, it is really about the English Church. And I was appalled to discover that it mentions all manner of people (some really appallling characters, if you read history!) as “Christian martyrs”…and it never once even even alludes to the number of English Catholic Christians who were martyred!!!
A few weeks later, I had company over; one was a Free Methodist pastor. He spotted the book, & broke into our conversation to exclaim, “You’re not actually reading that, are you? If you want to read wild fiction, you should buy a romance novel at Walmart’s! Those books don’t insult all the wonderful Catholic people who died at the hands of the English crown!!” [Bolding mine].
So, I explained…He said, "I wondered…because anybody who believes Foxe is even fairly accurate, needs to take a couple of history courses–fast!"I heartily agree with him!!

 

[O.S.Luke]

I must admit that I do have the Book of Martyrs on the office bookshelf.

It is next to books written by Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken…

I am sure some Protestants are very anti-Catholic in their understanding of history. However, my life and spiritual direction has been profoundly influenced by the ECF’s and Desert Fathers.

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Hi, Hon

I lost the Baptist booklet my sister gave me years ago, Trail of Blood.

It’s online though: fbinstitute.com/trail/index.htm
Here’s an excerpt:

Now to sum up the most significant events of this first five-century period:

1. The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher-church government.
2. The change from salvation by grace to Baptismal Salvation.
3. The change from “believers’ baptism” to “infant baptism.”
4. The Hierarchy organized. Marriage of church and state.
5. Seat of empire changed to Constantinople.
6. Infant baptism established by law and made compulsory.
7. Christians begin to persecute Christians.
8. The “Dark Ages” begin 426.
9. The sword and torch rather than the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation.
10. All semblance of “Religious liberty” dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries.
11. Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

So any church which disagreed with the Catholic Church was a “loyal New Testament church.”

Now, if you go on to read this booklet, I’d like to point out that my primary objection to the reasoning in this booklet is the deliberate confusion with “crimes against faith” and “crimes against the state.” In religious societies of the past as well as of the present, there’s punishment for breaking religious laws.

Okay, what’s unique about catholic countries having done that? Instead of faulting the religion (catholicism, anglicanism, islam, atheism), let’s fault the often-toxic combination of religion and authoritarian regime. Baptists claim that they are not Protestants because historically, they were persecuted in Protestant countries.

Step back and remember how late in England shoplifting could be punishable by death. I don’t believe that was reformed until the nineteenth century. When Baptists were imprisoned for rejecting state religion, it wasn’t really indicative of a bad religion, I say that it indicated the authoritarian nature of the government.

Not that I want to single out Baptists. But people were asking for examples and this booklet is one I remember. Doesn’t mean all Baptists hate Catholics or anything… it DOES mean that my sister has a low opinion of Catholicism because this booklet has been pretty much her only source of information on Catholicism.

And again, I’m trying to use a real-life example. I’m NOT trying to make anybody look like the bad guy!

 

[AshleyBelle]

Hi, Hon

I lost the Baptist booklet my sister gave me years ago, Trail of Blood.

It’s online though: fbinstitute.com/trail/index.htm
Here’s an excerpt:

Now to sum up the most significant events of this first five-century period:

1. The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher-church government.
2. The change from salvation by grace to Baptismal Salvation.
3. The change from “believers’ baptism” to “infant baptism.”
4. The Hierarchy organized. Marriage of church and state.
5. Seat of empire changed to Constantinople.
6. Infant baptism established by law and made compulsory.
7. Christians begin to persecute Christians.
8. The “Dark Ages” begin 426.
9. The sword and torch rather than the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation.
10. All semblance of “Religious liberty” dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries.
11. Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

So any church which disagreed with the Catholic Church was a “loyal New Testament church.”

Now, if you go on to read this booklet, I’d like to point out that my primary objection to the reasoning in this booklet is the deliberate confusion with “crimes against faith” and “crimes against the state.” In religious societies of the past as well as of the present, there’s punishment for breaking religious laws.

Okay, what’s unique about catholic countries having done that? Instead of faulting the religion (catholicism, anglicanism, islam, atheism), let’s fault the often-toxic combination of religion and authoritarian regime. Baptists claim that they are not Protestants because historically, they were persecuted in Protestant countries.

Step back and remember how late in England shoplifting could be punishable by death. I don’t believe that was reformed until the nineteenth century. When Baptists were imprisoned for rejecting state religion, it wasn’t really indicative of a bad religion, I say that it indicated the authoritarian nature of the government.

Not that I want to single out Baptists. But people were asking for examples and this booklet is one I remember. Doesn’t mean all Baptists hate Catholics or anything… it DOES mean that my sister has a low opinion of Catholicism because this booklet has been pretty much her only source of information on Catholicism.

And again, I’m trying to use a real-life example. I’m NOT trying to make anybody look like the bad guy!

Thank you for posting this…interesting… information.

Is it safe to assume that this booklet could not provide solid evidence for its claims? One thing stood out to me in particular as odd:

1. Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

What was a “loyal new testament church?” Particularly considering that there were so few copies of the Bible in existence, and that most people could not even read. How were they a “new testament Church” if they did not actually posess the new testament?

 

[SIA]

First, Merry Christmas to all here at CAF!

I’ve been having conversations recently with several non Catholic Christians, and it seems that there are many different levels of ways that people view the Catholic Church.

Some have been very charitable, and sincerely just enjoy talking about Jesus and their faith. On the other side of the spectrum, others are incredibly anti-Catholic and would rather throw personal attacks and “controversy” stories with other anti-Catholic propaganda tales at me.

Sometimes the lengths people go through to "disprove" the Church astounds me...but I can at least understand apologetics as a passion.. Though I do pray often that I remember Christian charity in these conversations.

My question has to do with a recent “theory” that has been thrown around by a few people in particular, and I am wondering how many non Catholic Christians feel this way about history.

Here is basically what the idea was:

This person explained that while the Catholic Church was busy burning heretics and forcing people to “submit to Rome” that the REAL Christians were out in the world, trying to worship God the “Bible way” praying for their lives. That these Christians have fought the Church throughout history and have been killed any time they have disagreed with Rome.

Wow…that was hard to actually type ><

Please tell me that there are not truly so many non Catholic Christians who feel this way about the Catholic Church and history? Or is it actually a widely held belief?

Catholics, what is your take on this wild accusation, and how would you even BEGIN to have a rational dialogue with somebody who sincerely BELIEVES this?

I hope I have not offended anyone… I really honestly am just wondering how many people feel this way. I promise if you post that you feel this way, I won’t bash you or call you a loony =P But I will try my best to offer what I have learned regarding history in a charitable way…in hopes of sincere dialogue.

Thanks for your replies

As I have asked so many times before, who exactly are you pinning here when you say Protestants? Remember, in the words of many Catholics here, there are over 33,000 Protestant denominations. You’ll have to narrow it down a bit from there on who exactly you are referring to.

 

[Chancellare]

As I have asked so many times before, who exactly are you pinning here when you say Protestants? Remember, in the words of many Catholics here, there are over 33,000 Protestant denominations. You’ll have to narrow it down a bit from there on who exactly you are referring to.

Do I have right to understand that a good number of those 33,000-ish are not proud of being associated with Protestant origin?