Protestantism's own history disproves the "drift" theory

[VociMike]

It is typically claimed by Protestants that the Catholic Church “drifted” away from the truth. That the same Church that fought early heresies drifted into other heresies so slowly that nobody noticed. But I offer Protestantism’s own history as proof against that.

In the first place, if this drift became so obvious to so many in 1520 (and there were a lot of Reformers, not just Luther), why was it completely invisible in 1450, or 1400, or 1300, or 1100 or 800 or 500? For if the Church had really drifted rather than jumped into error, it would have been in grave error well before 1520.

Further, Protestant history shows that reform of the Reformation movements happen regularly. The “Fundamentals” movement of the early 20th century is an obvious example. So we have evidence that Christianity cannot drift oblivious into error like slowly boiling a frog, with nobody noticing. Rather, Protestantism shows us that Christians are ever vigilent in detecting and correcting real or imagined error, as was the early Church. This makes it impossible to explain away the alleged thousand-year reign of error that supposedly affected the entire Church.

I have this image of a man slowly growing a third eye on his forehead. One day he wakes up and notices a fully-formed third eye! And yet all those days and weeks and months earlier, he never even noticed that third eye slowly growing. Boy was he surprised!

 

[Contarini]

It is typically claimed by Protestants that the Catholic Church “drifted” away from the truth. That the same Church that fought early heresies drifted into other heresies so slowly that nobody noticed. But I offer Protestantism’s own history as proof against that.

In the first place, if this drift became so obvious to so many in 1520 (and there were a lot of Reformers, not just Luther), why was it completely invisible in 1450, or 1400, or 1300, or 1100 or 800 or 500? For if the Church had really drifted rather than jumped into error, it would have been in grave error well before 1520.

Further, Protestant history shows that reform of the Reformation movements happen regularly. The “Fundamentals” movement of the early 20th century is an obvious example. So we have evidence that Christianity cannot drift oblivious into error like slowly boiling a frog, with nobody noticing. Rather, Protestantism shows us that Christians are ever vigilent in detecting and correcting real or imagined error, as was the early Church. This makes it impossible to explain away the alleged thousand-year reign of error that supposedly affected the entire Church.

I have this image of a man slowly growing a third eye on his forehead. One day he wakes up and notices a fully-formed third eye! And yet all those days and weeks and months earlier, he never even noticed that third eye slowly growing. Boy was he surprised!

First of all, I don’t buy this theory (at least if it posits serious or fatal error–I’m open to the idea that some errors crept in over time). And the difficulty in pointing to a specific point at which the Church “went off the rails” is certainly a serious one. But I don’t buy your argument. Precisely because “drift” happens all the time in Protestantism, it’s easy to imagine it happening in Catholicism. Sure, people protest. But people were always protesting in Catholicism too–both dissenters and orthodox reformers within the Church. And of course the more conspiratorial Protestants would say that the evidence we have is only the tip of the iceberg.

Your post is, from my perspective, an example of the tendency on this board to make “a priori” arguments instead of (what I think are far more valid and effective) empirical ones. You are trying to establish some overarching principle according to which the Protestant view must be wrong. In my own experience, I came to disbelieve the “drift” theory because it could not account for a lot of things I encountered that seemed like they really needed accounting for. For instance, the fact that one of my family’s heroes, Bernard of Clairvaux, who was supposedly one of the people protesting the drift into heresy, was himself very much part of the religious establishment and was credited with a major role in the development of Marian devotion (which I had been taught was one of the huge errors of Catholicism, of course). I couldn’t believe that medieval Catholicism was apostate or heretical because, to put it simply, I fell in love with medieval Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Libertas]

First of all, I don’t buy this theory (at least if it posits serious or fatal error–I’m open to the idea that some errors crept in over time).
Edwin

Matthew 10:20. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

Matthew 16:18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 18:17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Matthew 28:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Luke 10:16. He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Luke 12:12. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say.

Just a few among many many verses. How again do you justify that some errors “crept” into the Church? If not even the gates of hades will triumph over the Church, how could mans own fallible nature do so? It just cannot.

 

[Contarini]

Matthew 10:20. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

Matthew 16:18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 18:17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Matthew 28:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Luke 10:16. He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Luke 12:12. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say.

Just a few among many many verses. How again do you justify that some errors “crept” into the Church? If not even the gates of hades will triumph over the Church, how could mans own fallible nature do so? It just cannot.

Logically, then, you should believe that no Catholic has ever committed a sin.

If error constitutes “man’s own fallible nature” triumphing over the Church, then so does sin.

The Catholic Church of course does not claim that there has never been error within the Church. It denies that one can say strictly speaking that the *Church *has erred or sinned (a point of semantics with which I’m uncomfortable but which I can accept with some reluctance), but it does not deny that members of the Church err or sin. Certainly there are things that have been commonly believed by Catholics (such as that all Protestants were going to hell, or that laypeople should not generally read Scripture) that have turned out to be false. So what I’m saying is not particularly controversial except among ultra-traditionalists.

Edwin