Is there a reason why some Catholics like to trot out the “there was no church” bogeyman, when a non-Catholic shows them that their leadership may have made a mistake or been in error about something?
Perhaps you are correct about the OP’s intent-if this is the case, then I was mistaken in my reply. It was based on comments by him in another thread where others’ specific questioning of historical events prompted the “There must have been no church” statement to be made.I don’t think the OP is talking about those non-Catholics that do believe the Church remained but erred. He’s talking about those that don’t believe the Church existed for a certain amount of time. There are plenty of those around as well, and I too, don’t understand their reasoning.
If you have your own questions about Church error, I would suggest you start another thread on it. You’d be more likely to have your questions addressed there than on a thread that doesn’t address the concern you speak of.
A word of advice, though: if you phrase your question bittlerly or with anger implied, you’re not going to get very convincing answers, or have anyone bother to decently answer your question. Phrase them intelligently and neutrally if possible, showing that you are open to reflection on their answers. And probably the best place to post it is in the Apologetics section.
(Have you ever heard the phrase “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar”?)
LOL, no problem! I’ve utilized my own share of crankiness on these forums myself.Perhaps you are correct about the OP’s intent-if this is the case, then I was mistaken in my reply. It was based on comments by him in another thread where others’ specific questioning of historical events prompted the “There must have been no church” statement to be made.
Thank you for the advice-I have asked questions on a number of topics and gotten some good answers from some of the posters here-I’ve also gotten some rather snide and /or triumphal responses that may have made me a bit cranky of late. It’s always good to have someone point that out so I can refocus and hopefully come back with a better attitude than that.
I’m pretty sure that due to the nature of these forums, it’s expected that every now and then, emotions are going to run high from a discussion. Also, I’ve experienced myself that when I don’t feel good physically, it shows in my posts.If this is true, what exactly is it that Martin Luther rebelled against?
Martin Luther reminded me of Korah who rebelled against Moses and Aaron.
If that is so, then why was their light subdued?
Also, is what you speak of known as “the trail of blood”?
More than that, if it were truly a Reformation, what was reformed?
Exactly - whom/what were the grievances against, and to the door of what building were they nailed? In order to disagree with an organization as Luther did, one by definition acknowledges that it existed prior to the disagreement.
That argument rests on the RCC being the church Jesus founded, which no one has yet shown…
You really are confused, Tim. You have know I idea what most protestants believe. You just parrot the straw man arguments you are fed by historically and theological inept apologists for Rome.
Probably because no one has shown any other Church to be the one, which leaves the Catholic Church most likely.
Why do people say this? I’ve heard many a protestant say what the OP has stated. Just because you’re a protestant and you don’t believe the OP’s statement, doesn’t mean other Protestants or non-Catholics in general don’t either.
Is this a question or just a statement?? What’s the point
You’ve heard many protestants say this? I know that protestants at episcopal. lutheran, methodist, baptist, or any other mainline protestant churches don’t believe there was no church until the 1500s. Stop going to KKK rallies to learn about protestantism and expand your frame of reference.