Why all the Fuss over the Reformation 2

[AbideWithMe]

Maybe she got the part about what most Protestants believe on the subject of the early Church wrong, but I’m not assuming that based on what a few Protestants here write. You haven’t convinced me that you’re right on the subject.

Denise, I think you have been mostly respectful. My criticism of what you quoted was not about you personally.

I agree with what Contarini and Dave Noonan said, with the exception that I don’t know anything about Dr. Moczar and her other publications; I was simply pointing out a particular instance right here where she wrote outside her field of competence and rather sloppily misrepresented “most Protestants”.

Contarini in particular I know to be much more within his field of academic competence in what he’s telling you here. So, in your place, I would either accept his information, or do my own research over a period of time and reserve judgment meanwhile.

As a general principle, I’m leery of swallowing whole anything said by an apologetic defender of one faith tradition about the beliefs of a group to which they don’t belong. I’ll make cautious exceptions for scholars speaking in a more disinterested and academic manner and for those who I’ve observed to be particularly even-handed—I think Contarini usually meets both those criteria.

I agree with Dave, Jose, and Contarini; in my own words, we all need to be especially careful to observe the Golden Rule and its negative formulation when talking about what we think other people believe.

 

[Porknpie]

Maybe there wasn’t in 50. But there certainly was at any of those later dates. Almost all–maybe all–the NT books were written before 100. And 2 Peter, which may or may not have been written before 100, calls Paul’s letters Scripture, so by the time that letter was written some of the NT books were not only written but were functioning as Scripture. The four-Gospel canon is attested in the early second century, and more emphatically in Irenaeus at the end of the century.

I know that what you mean is probably “the precise limits of the NT canon were not firmly settled.” But that isn’t what most people would conclude from your language. Hence what you are saying is at best highly misleading and at worst utterly absurd and plainly false.

I don’t know why Catholics on this forum are so fond of this particularly nonsensical bit of propaganda, which anyone with any knowledge of the early Church knows has no basis whatever.
Edwin

I apologize for this mis-communication on when scripture was scripture. I do understand some of the evolvement here, appearances aside. uch: But the point I was trying to get to was this:

Tomyris said that the reformed view sees this differently:

Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

How far back to we have to go for the answer to be:

“The Reformed view sees this the same”

Correct me where I error, but somewhere around 100 AD there would be an argument for all four Gospels and the writings of Paul.

Would there be agreement with the statement at 100 AD or would the Reformed still see it differently?

I am curious to the answer.

PnP

 

[spina1953]

From my own personal research It seems that the 4 Gospels were accepted by the year 100AD. As for Paul’s Epistles some were accepted and read but it is not that clear that they were considered Scripture. I think that when Peter was talking about Paul’s writings that it was difficult to understand just as Scripture was difficult to understand not so much that Paul’s writings were scripture only that they could be just as misread as Scripture. That is my thinking from reading 2 Peter.

 

[PRmerger]

PR is asking you, when do you think the gift “stopped”?

Right. When, according to the Protestants who acknowledge that God has used men to speak infallibly, did God stop using men to speak infallibly?

We all agree it was functioning throughout the writing of the NT.

Indeed.

So when do these Protestants believe God stopped using men to speak infallibly, since there is agreement that God did indeed do this, over multiple time frames, with multiple men.

When did it stop?

And how do you know?

 

[Tomyris]

I apologize for this mis-communication on when scripture was scripture. I do understand some of the evolvement here, appearances aside. uch: But the point I was trying to get to was this:

Tomyris said that the reformed view sees this differently:

Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

How far back to we have to go for the answer to be:

“The Reformed view sees this the same”

Correct me where I error, but somewhere around 100 AD there would be an argument for all four Gospels and the writings of Paul.

Would there be agreement with the statement at 100 AD or would the Reformed still see it differently?

I am curious to the answer.

PnP

Great question. Really.

Hmmm. I am in trouble no matter what. For one thing, I don’t know “the Reformed View” well enough to claim that what I post is in any way representative. So…I will do what comes naturally, and wildly speculate without thinking. That always keeps me out of trouble .

I think the Church was arguing about this before there was a Church. I don’t think there EVER was one voice, unless it was that of Christ raised above the noise, and then only half-listened to. There were Judaizers and gnostics, converted Jews and converted Gentiles, and, like today, those who had some grasp or idea of what had happened but without full realization either intellectually or in their lives. Paul paints a picture of the church at Corinth that indicates it was in some ways a complex disaster. I don’t think Corinth’s problems were unique to Corinth. We get a snapshot of their congregational life by someone about to tear his hair out over them.

The issues we battle over were not issues then, because no one had realized they were issues yet. They were in Church history, much of which had not happened, so they did not argue about THAT, but I imagine they argued about Judaic practices and the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, and whether the Empire was about to put its foot down on them and make martyrs of them all. And they wrote. And they wrote and they wrote and they wrote. If you look at the lists of books that we have, the ECFs and those following in their massive volumes that you can get in huge sets, and then discover the lists of books that did NOT survive, far longer and apparently more extensive, it staggers the mind to think of how much they wrote. We have only a few things from the prolific Melito, and a low percentage of Clement of Alexandria’s vast corpus. Somewhere in the sands there may be copies of other letters, such as Paul’s to the Laodicians, that would be of interest. We would argue over THEM and throw quotes from them at each other, as if we don’t have enough material from 2000 years of writing. Of the making of books there is no end.

Ok. Enough of that. The Reformed reject Tradition as equal in final authority to Scripture. The question I am ostensibly responding to asks us to go back before the completion of the Apostolic Deposit and look into how the Church at the time viewed it. And I am arguing they argued about it and what it all meant. There were not Reformed and Catholic then, or Methodist or Lutheran or Orthodox, there were Christians and they were being killed and following the Resurrected Messiah and trying to digest new ideas. It was a complex situation, as today’s is complex, only the complexities have changed.

I thought today of Peter’s role. I think they argued about that. Matthew 16:17 is followed shortly by Matthew 16:23 and John 21:17 is followed by John 21:24. Peter starts “tending” John and gets rebuked. We could do threads just on those four verses (probably have). I think they argued about it. Today we have competing visions of what it means to do Church together and I think they did, too, because they were human and in contact in some weird way with the holy, and so are we.

On CAF we like to take Mt 16:17 and John 21:17 and say that shows a Catholic position, and take the antithetical verses and say these are Protestant. In truth we cannot afford to neglect either set. I don’t think, in all honesty, anyone does. We can’t verse-bomb the other party into accepting our position, because we follow theological positions that have been reflective for hundreds and thousands of years. And they are intertwined, as they were in the beginning and are now.

 

[Tomyris]

And how do you know?

That is a foundational question. How do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

That is a foundational question. How do you know?

Because I trust the Church.

I figure that since she got it right about the kerygma, then she got it right about the rest.

Now, can you answer this question: When did God stop using men to speak infallibly?

 

[Contarini]

How is what I’ve written, or what Dr. Moczar has written, an attempt to swoop on poorly catechized Protestants before they have a chance to learn their own tradition?

This forum is frequented by a lot of people–one of its purposes is to convert Protestants to Catholicism. However, I get that this wasn’t your intention, and really that isn’t my main objection. If fundamentalist Protestants go straight to Catholicism without giving serious thought to more moderate forms of Protestantism, I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is with the attitudes that such folks often bring with them, and with the assumption by cradles Catholics that all Protestants are “Trail of Blood” anti-Catholics, which just exacerbates Christian divisions.

The book which I was referencing was written for Catholics. Maybe she got the part about what most Protestants believe on the subject of the early Church wrong, but I’m not assuming that based on what a few Protestants here write. You haven’t convinced me that you’re right on the subject.

What would convince you?

You may not care enough to look into the matter. Fine. But that’s your call.

Many Catholics are aware that there are lies and myths that Protestants have maintained and promote regarding Catholicism. That was the point that I was trying to make, even though I did so in a poor manner.

Right. The problem was that you perpetuated one of those myths (all Protestants are anti-Catholic and don’t acknowledge much of church history) about Protestants.

I care very much about Protestant misunderstandings of Catholicism–and about Catholic misunderstandings of Protestantism.

I am sorry for coming down so heavily on you–I understand your intention. But it’s frustrating when several Protestants speak up and say “this isn’t fair” and you essentially brush us aside.

Edwin

 

[Porknpie]

Great question. Really.

Hmmm. I am in trouble no matter what. For one thing, I don’t know “the Reformed View” well enough to claim that what I post is in any way representative. So…I will do what comes naturally, and wildly speculate without thinking. That always keeps me out of trouble .

I think the Church was arguing about this before there was a Church. I don’t think there EVER was one voice, unless it was that of Christ raised above the noise, and then only half-listened to. There were Judaizers and gnostics, converted Jews and converted Gentiles, and, like today, those who had some grasp or idea of what had happened but without full realization either intellectually or in their lives. Paul paints a picture of the church at Corinth that indicates it was in some ways a complex disaster. I don’t think Corinth’s problems were unique to Corinth. We get a snapshot of their congregational life by someone about to tear his hair out over them.

The issues we battle over were not issues then, because no one had realized they were issues yet. They were in Church history, much of which had not happened, so they did not argue about THAT, but I imagine they argued about Judaic practices and the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, and whether the Empire was about to put its foot down on them and make martyrs of them all. And they wrote. And they wrote and they wrote and they wrote. If you look at the lists of books that we have, the ECFs and those following in their massive volumes that you can get in huge sets, and then discover the lists of books that did NOT survive, far longer and apparently more extensive, it staggers the mind to think of how much they wrote. We have only a few things from the prolific Melito, and a low percentage of Clement of Alexandria’s vast corpus. Somewhere in the sands there may be copies of other letters, such as Paul’s to the Laodicians, that would be of interest. We would argue over THEM and throw quotes from them at each other, as if we don’t have enough material from 2000 years of writing. Of the making of books there is no end.

Ok. Enough of that. The Reformed reject Tradition as equal in final authority to Scripture. The question I am ostensibly responding to asks us to go back before the completion of the Apostolic Deposit and look into how the Church at the time viewed it. And I am arguing they argued about it and what it all meant. There were not Reformed and Catholic then, or Methodist or Lutheran or Orthodox, there were Christians and they were being killed and following the Resurrected Messiah and trying to digest new ideas. It was a complex situation, as today’s is complex, only the complexities have changed.

I thought today of Peter’s role. I think they argued about that. Matthew 16:17 is followed shortly by Matthew 16:23 and John 21:17 is followed by John 21:24. Peter starts “tending” John and gets rebuked. We could do threads just on those four verses (probably have). I think they argued about it. Today we have competing visions of what it means to do Church together and I think they did, too, because they were human and in contact in some weird way with the holy, and so are we.

On CAF we like to take Mt 16:17 and John 21:17 and say that shows a Catholic position, and take the antithetical verses and say these are Protestant. In truth we cannot afford to neglect either set. I don’t think, in all honesty, anyone does. We can’t verse-bomb the other party into accepting our position, because we follow theological positions that have been reflective for hundreds and thousands of years. And they are intertwined, as they were in the beginning and are now.

Thanks Tomi,

I’m not sure that I understand you here. When do you believe there was first a "Church?

I think the Church was arguing about this before there was a Church.

And if they found in a cave, Paul’s epistle to the Laodicians, who would decide if it were scripture or not? Of course, I’m biting my tongue to ask the question: would you … again listen to the Catholic Church? It is of course a NT writing and we’ve been infallible so far (I’m not sure whether to show a :hug3: or a so here’s both).

 

[guanophore]

How has what I’ve written not been respectful to what Protestants have said?

Try a prayerful and open minded reading of post 46.

 

[guanophore]

I’m thinking now that maybe what Contarini was trying to say is that I must be respectful and agree with a Protestant when he or she states that something is believed or not believed by all Protestants.

Actually, it is the opposite.

a Protestant has a right to a particular view, but I’m not compelled to agree with it, even if most Protestants themselves on this forum agree with it.

No one is asking you to. You are being asked to LISTEN and respect what people say they believe, not to agree with it. You are being asked not to ASSUME that “all Protestants” believe certain things.

Given that there are thousands of different Protestant denoms, I don’t see how anyone here can claim to represent what they all believe.

Yet you have, and you are.

It would be nice if all Protestants and even Catholics respectfully agreed with everything I write, but I don’t expect that at all. It wouldn’t really be a debate if we all agreed with what everyone writes. I had not intended, by posting those quotes, to start a discussion about what Protestants believe regarding the early Church. I see now that it is a sensitive subject.

I think the subject is not nearly so sensitive as the damage from your attitude.

 

[Denise1957]

Right. The problem was that you perpetuated one of those myths (all Protestants are anti-Catholic and don’t acknowledge much of church history) about Protestants.

I care very much about Protestant misunderstandings of Catholicism–and about Catholic misunderstandings of Protestantism.

I am sorry for coming down so heavily on you–I understand your intention. But it’s frustrating when several Protestants speak up and say “this isn’t fair” and you essentially brush us aside.

Edwin

Okay, I understand that you believe it’s a myth that most Protestants believe that the Early Church was pure, but then Constantine changed it. But over-reacting, as a couple of you did, does not seem warranted, but thank you for the apology. I know that you aren’t usually so heavy-handed. There are some things that push our buttons, and maybe that’s what the case is here.

But I think it’s fair to say that there are more myths or lies perpetuated by Protestants against Catholics, than by Catholics against Protestants. Some of them, for instance, being that the Catholic Church was “selling” indulgences pre-Reformation, and that the Catholic hierarchy at that time were corrupt, worldly, and immoral. Then there’s also the myths regarding the Inquisition, Crusades, and the Church being anti-science (Galileo).

Not all Protestants pay attention to or put much emphasis these myths about the Catholic Church. I didn’t think about them much when I was a Protestant., so I was open to conversion. But I knew that the myths were there, just the same. It would seem that the myths are more common here in the U.S., since it was founded by Protestant rebels (Puritans). Not that they were rebelling against the Catholic Church, but rather against how they were treated in England at that time, due to their causing problems in England in their rebellion against the authority of the CoE (If I recall correctly). So the three main parts of the world in which the myths against the Catholic Church are perpetuated have mainly been Germany, the UK, and the U.S. It’s good that we have this forum to try to dispel the myths.

 

[spina1953]

Okay, I understand that you believe it’s a myth that most Protestants believe that the Early Church was pure, but then Constantine changed it. But over-reacting, as a couple of you did, does not seem warranted, but thank you for the apology. I know that you aren’t usually so heavy-handed. There are some things that push our buttons, and maybe that’s what the case is here.

But I think it’s fair to say that there are more myths or lies perpetuated by Protestants against Catholics, than by Catholics against Protestants. Some of them, for instance, being that the Catholic Church was “selling” indulgences pre-Reformation, and that the Catholic hierarchy at that time were corrupt, worldly, and immoral. Then there’s also the myths regarding the Inquisition, Crusades, and the Church being anti-science (Galileo).

Not all Protestants pay attention to or put much emphasis these myths about the Catholic Church. I didn’t think about them much when I was a Protestant., so I was open to conversion. But I knew that the myths were there, just the same. It would seem that the myths are more common here in the U.S., since it was founded by Protestant rebels (Puritans). Not that they were rebelling against the Catholic Church, but rather against how they were treated in England at that time, due to their causing problems in England in their rebellion against the authority of the CoE (If I recall correctly). So the three main parts of the world in which the myths against the Catholic Church are perpetuated have mainly been Germany, the UK, and the U.S. It’s good that we have this forum to try to dispel the myths.

Hi Denise 1957: I agree and since you mentioned it many of the Protestants that come to the USA not all but many were very much anti-Catholic, some like the Puritans wanted tolerance for themselves but did not have any for other whether Catholic or not around them. So we do have plenty of myths about Catholic’s and what they believe and while I do know that not every Protestant thinks about Catholic’s one way or the other and neither do all Catholic’s know what all Protestants thinks; I know that neither Catholic or Protestant know about each others beliefs to all that extent, There will always be I think those who for whatever reason under the sun want to create myths about each other.

 

[Contarini]

Okay, I understand that you believe it’s a myth that most Protestants believe that the Early Church was pure, but then Constantine changed it.

Many Protestants do believe this–probably a majority of American Protestants think that things went downhill after Constantine. But that doesn’t mean that there was no true Church.

Again, it makes a difference whether we’re talking about the average person in the pew (most of them don’t think about the subject at all) or theologically educated people, and how we’re counting that.

But the standard narrative among educated evangelical Protestants is that the medieval Church is part of the heritage of all Christians and that it had good points and bad points. The Reformation is seen as a continuation of the good points and an attempt to correct the bad points, not a radical break that involves a rejection of everything that went before. (For instance, even my very anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist friends think that Anselm’s doctrine of the Atonement is a very important part of the heritage of orthodox Christianity. The typical claim in conservative Reformed circles is that Catholicism only ceased to be the true Church at the Council of Trent, when “Rome anathematized the Gospel.” Again, this is a very conservative view not shared by most educated Protestants.)

The picture your source painted wasn’t entirely false by any means. But then, neither are the “myths” about Catholicism that you describe. the problem with our stereotypes of each other is that they contain a lot of truth, but are exaggerated and caricatured due to a lack of empathy and patience in understanding the full context. (For instance, it’s true that the Catholic Church frequently restricted lay access to Scripture, but not true that the Church was in any way hostile to Scripture–the restrictive moves came from a concern about misunderstanding of Scripture that any serious evangelical ought to acknowledge has some merit, given how many misinterpretations of Scripture are abroad today. And so on.)

Edwin

 

[Denise1957]

Many Protestants do believe this–probably a majority of American Protestants think that things went downhill after Constantine. But that doesn’t mean that there was no true Church.

Again, it makes a difference whether we’re talking about the average person in the pew (most of them don’t think about the subject at all) or theologically educated people, and how we’re counting that.

But the standard narrative among educated evangelical Protestants is that the medieval Church is part of the heritage of all Christians and that it had good points and bad points. The Reformation is seen as a continuation of the good points and an attempt to correct the bad points, not a radical break that involves a rejection of everything that went before. (For instance, even my very anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist friends think that Anselm’s doctrine of the Atonement is a very important part of the heritage of orthodox Christianity. The typical claim in conservative Reformed circles is that Catholicism only ceased to be the true Church at the Council of Trent, when “Rome anathematized the Gospel.” Again, this is a very conservative view not shared by most educated Protestants.)

The picture your source painted wasn’t entirely false by any means. But then, neither are the “myths” about Catholicism that you describe. the problem with our stereotypes of each other is that they contain a lot of truth, but are exaggerated and caricatured due to a lack of empathy and patience in understanding the full context. (For instance, it’s true that the Catholic Church frequently restricted lay access to Scripture, but not true that the Church was in any way hostile to Scripture–the restrictive moves came from a concern about misunderstanding of Scripture that any serious evangelical ought to acknowledge has some merit, given how many misinterpretations of Scripture are abroad today. And so on.)

Edwin

You raise some good points here, which I’ll try to address. Firstly, you mention that a majority of American Protestants think that things went downhill after Constantine, but that this does not mean that there was no true Church. What Dr. Moczar was saying is that most believe that the Church went underground. I don’t know if you would agree with this or not.

You mention that among educated Evangelical Protestants is the belief that the Church had its good points and bad points - but do they believe that it was still the true Church as founded by Christ?

Regarding the myths about Catholicism that I mentioned, what I should have said is there are myths as to the reality of what really happened in Church history. The Protestant version, which reigns supreme in the American mind is not an accurate view of the history of Catholicism. Yes, there were Crusades, and Inquisitions, and problems in the Church pre-reformation. But the Protestant version of these things are myths in that they do not tell the real story, and falsehoods are invented and perpetuated.

 

[GKC]

You raise some good points here, which I’ll try to address. Firstly, you mention that a majority of American Protestants think that things went downhill after Constantine, but that this does not mean that there was no true Church. What Dr. Moczar was saying is that most believe that the Church went underground. I don’t know if you would agree with this or not.

You mention that among educated Evangelical Protestants is the belief that the Church had its good points and bad points - but do they believe that it was still the true Church as founded by Christ?

Regarding the myths about Catholicism that I mentioned, what I should have said is there are myths as to the reality of what really happened in Church history. The Protestant version, which reigns supreme in the American mind is not an accurate view of the history of Catholicism. Yes, there were Crusades, and Inquisitions, and problems in the Church pre-reformation. But the Protestant version of these things are myths in that they do not tell the real story, and falsehoods are invented and perpetuated.

As to the Inquisitions, I always recommend Peters’ INQUISITION, for the overall view, and Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION, for the most frequently discussed one. Good correctives for the Black myth, for anyone.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

You raise some good points here, which I’ll try to address. Firstly, you mention that a majority of American Protestants think that things went downhill after Constantine, but that this does not mean that there was no true Church. What Dr. Moczar was saying is that most believe that the Church went underground. I don’t know if you would agree with this or not.

Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant that the majority of educated Protestants think that the “official” Catholic Church was fully part of the true Church, not that it went underground. I think Catholics often have trouble understanding that most Protestants believe that the Church is “always reforming and always in need of reform,” and so they have no problem accepting as part of their heritage a Church that they may think got a lot of things wrong. In fact, when new theological movements arise (as with the recent “open theism” movement), its proponents typically compare their conservative opponents to Catholic opponents of Luther. In other words, the paradigm is not “Catholicism was a false church and we are true” but “the Reformation was a needed change within the true Church, and we should always be on the lookout for the next one.”

You mention that among educated Evangelical Protestants is the belief that the Church had its good points and bad points - but do they believe that it was still the Church as founded by Christ?

Yes, but not in a necessarily exclusive manner. The most common view is that the Church is composed of all believers and that there has always been division within it, though of course at times much less than now. Many evangelicals will say that the unity of the past was achieved through coercion and thus wasn’t really something to be idealized. Many of them see modern denominationalism as a healthy expression of Christian diversity allowing for the Gospel to reach many different kinds of people, though others are more critical of it.

Regarding the myths about Catholicism that I mentioned, what I should have said is there are myths as to the reality of what really happened in Church history. The Protestant version, which reigns supreme in the American mind is not an accurate view of the history of Catholicism. Yes, there were Crusades, and Inquisitions, and problems in the Church pre-reformation. But the Protestant version of these things are myths in that they do not tell the real story, and falsehoods are invented and perpetuated.

Right–one-sided and distorted, as I said.

I grew up on those myths. I read 19th-century Protestant church histories. I was homeschooled and used a high-school history textbook published by Bob Jones University Press!

But then I went to college–a Protestant college affiliated with the “Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.” And my professors, who were not particularly pro-Catholic theologically (they tended to identify with the Anabaptists, though their movement has no direct historical connection with the Anabaptists) challenged my prejudices. (This wasn’t the only factor–my family was actually relatively moderate compared to many of our fundamentalist friends, and I was discovering Catholic authors like G.K. Chesterton.)

Edwin

 

[GKC]

… and I was discovering Catholic authors like G.K. Chesterton.)

Edwin

:clapping:

GKC

 

[Denise1957]

Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant that the majority of educated Protestants think that the “official” Catholic Church was fully part of the true Church, not that it went underground. I think Catholics often have trouble understanding that most Protestants believe that the Church is “always reforming and always in need of reform,” and so they have no problem accepting as part of their heritage a Church that they may think got a lot of things wrong. In fact, when new theological movements arise (as with the recent “open theism” movement), its proponents typically compare their conservative opponents to Catholic opponents of Luther. In other words, the paradigm is not “Catholicism was a false church and we are true” but “the Reformation was a needed change within the true Church, and we should always be on the lookout for the next one.”

Yes, but not in a necessarily exclusive manner. The most common view is that the Church is composed of all believers and that there has always been division within it, though of course at times much less than now. Many evangelicals will say that the unity of the past was achieved through coercion and thus wasn’t really something to be idealized. Many of them see modern denominationalism as a healthy expression of Christian diversity allowing for the Gospel to reach many different kinds of people, though others are more critical of it.

Right–one-sided and distorted, as I said.

I grew up on those myths. I read 19th-century Protestant church histories. I was homeschooled and used a high-school history textbook published by Bob Jones University Press!

But then I went to college–a Protestant college affiliated with the “Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.” And my professors, who were not particularly pro-Catholic theologically (they tended to identify with the Anabaptists, though their movement has no direct historical connection with the Anabaptists) challenged my prejudices. (This wasn’t the only factor–my family was actually relatively moderate compared to many of our fundamentalist friends, and I was discovering Catholic authors like G.K. Chesterton.)

Edwin

I appreciate the well-reasoned explanation. The main thing I want to ask is this: you mention in the first paragraph that the majority of educated Protestants think that the official Catholic church was fully part of the true Church, not that it went underground. Here’s my question: if the official Catholic Church was “part” of the true church, then where was the other part, or parts?

 

[Denise1957]

As to the Inquisitions, I always recommend Peters’ INQUISITION, for the overall view, and Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION, for the most frequently discussed one. Good correctives for the Black myth, for anyone.

GKC

Dr. Moczar, in her book Seven Lies About Catholic History recommends Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition, but not the abridged version, and she also mentions that the related video is entertaining as well as informative. She makes no mention that I can find regarding Peter’s book, Inquisition.