What are your thoughts about protestants claiming that Catholicism forged history?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carlo26
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carlo26

Guest
I would always see protestants claiming of their connection within the early church. And accusing the Church of counterfeiting history. What are your thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
History is written and rewritten by those in power. This is nothing new under the sun. The idea that there is (or can be) a totally factual, neutral, objective history is naïve, for every act of writing history inevitably involves selection, interpretation, and assessment. What was chaotic when it happened is overlayed with a retrospective interpretation of causes, reasons, connections, etc. that may or may not have existed and can never be truly verified. Besides, “touching up” history isn’t necessarily unethical. It depends what the history writer is trying to achieve. But he might not even be consciously aware of his motivations. He might truly believe that he’s trying to be “factual”.

Did the RCC ever “embellish” history during the many centuries she was powerful not only in the spiritual domain but also in the worldly domain? It’s highly likely that she did. But so has every organization that was ever truly powerful. The question is whether She did so with noble intentions. I believe yes.
 
The question is too vague to be able to answer just like that.

The big issue in which Protestants rewrite history is the creation of the idea that, after a 1500 year interlude, they rediscovered the church as it was in Apostolic times.
 
Last edited:
Carlo26 said:
I would always see protestants claiming of their connection within the early church. And accusing the Church of counterfeiting history. What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
If anyone makes such a claim then ask them to provide evidence to support their claim. It is not up to us to refute baseless assertions. The onus is on them to back up their claims.
 
Montrose said:
If anyone makes such a claim then ask them to provide evidence to support their claim. It is not up to us to refute baseless assertions. The onus is on them to back up their claims.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to be the Devil’s advocate, but the challenge you pose for “them” to prove their case, is one they accepted long ago — and with great vigor, academic skill, effort, and stamina too. The number of books, scholarly works, websites, etc. dedicated to proving that the true history of Christianity is different from the Catholic version, is staggering. That doesn’t necessarily make them right, of course, but to tell them to “prove it” when they’ve been doing that for decades, isn’t a convincing defense IMO.
 
Let’s remember though Catholicism is all biblical and we haven’t removed any books. Either way what we do and believe in is biblical they choose what they want to believe and accept
 
And the amount of work or screaming louder isn’t a convincing defense IMO.
 
Last edited:
Why would the angel declare her blessed among women? Where else is that done in scripture?
 
No no no not how it works. Answer the questions. We don’t do it the protestant way
 
Sure. My thoughts are then you can’t trust any history, even the history of whatever Protestant church there is. The odd thing is that it’s the Protestants who openly changed and forged biblical history going so far as to change words or even omit entire books because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
 
That’s great!
First let’s start with the understand original sin.
Original sin isn’t what we do but what we inherit.
You have to know the act he’s about to perform is sinful while freely carrying out the sinful act.

This who DO NOT have the use of intellect and will can not sin.
Many exceptions to romans 3:23 & I John 1:8 already.
 
Sure. As soon as you give me the book I’m not seeing that says the Bible contains all theological doctrine and is the sole source.
 
Ok well we can definitely look at that. Feel free to start a thread where we can discuss the old and new covenants, the ark that housed both of them, the fall of Man through a sinning eve and Adam and the redemption of Adam through the new eve and the new Adam in Jesus, and other biblical subjects. It just doesn’t belong on this thread.
 
Carlo26 said:
And accusing the Church of counterfeiting history.
Click to expand...
If that is true, then the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church has failed. And the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth has failed too.
Add to that, that the idea that it took over 1500 years to somehow rediscover the true history is ridiculous.
 
I’m trying to discuss with you but you never replied. You can’t just jump in you have to understand and so I posted and no reply.
 
Carlo26 said:
I would always see protestants claiming of their connection within the early church. And accusing the Church of counterfeiting history. What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
 
First of all, sinless Mary is not anti-biblical when you understand the so-called proof texts that you guys love to use to ‘prove’ she sinned.

Secondly, no where in the bible does it say we need to find everything in the bible pertaining to the Christian faith.

Thirdly, this is a rather innocuous doctrine and maybe you can help me understand why you find it so objectionable. Look at how John the Baptist’s parents are described in the gospel according to Luke:

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Wow, all that and Elizabeth was not going to be a vessel to carry the living Son of God as Mary was.
 
Martin Luther and the other founding fathers of Protestantism believed Mary was born free from sin and remained sinless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top