I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

Hello, I want a Protestant whatever domination you belong to (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist…), to answer this question, and I don’t intend to provoke or mock anyone, I just want to really try to understand.

When Martin Luther started the reformation in the XVI century until today, how the church survived and how Christianity existed in this almost 1500 years gap?
If we were to admit that Martin Luther and the Reformation in its main tenets were right, then we have to admit that the Catholic Church by logic is not infallible, and dogmas such as the Papal Infallibility are not true, therefore the Catholic Church is not the unique church founded by Christ.
But where was the True Doctrine in all its aspects during all this centuries? If you are a Christian in the V Century, or the X century, for example, how would you worship God?
If the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ there must be an alternative explanation since the beggining of the Christianity with the death and ressurection of christ, the writing of the gospels, the council to make the cannon etc. until present days.
Why then Jesus if he has a project to save all mankind, left the True Doctrine hidden during centuries and centuries, with the Church who influenced all the Western Civilization, influenced millions and millions of people, built monasteries, universities, and that was in its innermost not true? But where was this True Doctrine doing in all this period?

I don’t want a clumsy answer with a half-answer.

Please, I want a Consistent, Coherent, fully grounded and most important a Convincing answer to that question, don’t hesitate to give a large and consistent answer please, I really want to know how protestants explain this, because although i’m all open minded, I can’t grasp any answer that were given to me until now.

Thank you!

When Martin Luther started the reformation in the XVI century until today, how the church survived and how Christianity existed in this almost 1500 years gap?

Most Protestants don’t acknowledge any such gap. Lutherans believe we are a continuation of the western Church.

If we were to admit that Martin Luther and the Reformation in its main tenets were right, then we have to admit that the Catholic Church by logic is not infallible, and dogmas such as the Papal Infallibility are not true, therefore the Catholic Church is not the unique church founded by Christ.

Yes, I would admit to that.

But where was the True Doctrine in all its aspects during all this centuries? If you are a Christian in the V Century, or the X century, for example, how would you worship God?

You would worship God in word and sacrament, same as Christians have always worshipped.

If the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ there must be an alternative explanation since the beggining of the Christianity with the death and ressurection of christ, the writing of the gospels, the council to make the cannon etc. until present days.

The explanation is that error crept in to the Catholic Church and it needed to be reformed.

Why then Jesus if he has a project to save all mankind, left the True Doctrine hidden during centuries and centuries, with the Church who influenced all the Western Civilization, influenced millions and millions of people, built monasteries, universities, and that was in its innermost not true? But where was this True Doctrine doing in all this period?

I think you think we think that the RC is completely false. We don’t believe that at all. The RC teaches enough truth for folks who are RC to achieve salvation.

What “western church”? As far as I know there was only the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (Since the Schism in the XI Century)
How would you would worship God in the V and X Century? You would go to a Catholic Church, which is subdued to the Pope, the Sacraments, the Veneration to Mary, the Saints, Images, etc. Which I think most protestants condemn these things nowadays.
Well If you think the Roman Catholic church was not all Wrong, in these times, then it was partially right in some issues and wrong in another ones, not totally right, then where was the “totally right” doctrine in all this time? There was not something totally right in this issues during centuries?

That is correct. Only God is infallible

Yes.

It is a part of the true Church, sure. Or you could say that the Catholic represents the Western or Latinate Church which follow the Western traditions. But it doesn’t constitute the entire Church and never has. Early Christianity spread quickly–to Egypt, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Persia, India–and even as far away as China. Armenia was officially Christian by 301–before Christianity was even sanctioned in the Roman Empire. The Pope wasn’t telling the Church in India or China what to do–they didn’t even speak the same language.

If worshipping God depends on full and perfect knowledge of everything, we are all in trouble. See 1 Corinthians 13:12.

Each Church came up with their on canon, which attests to some degree of diversity and variability within the early church and between churches. Their Bibles vary somewhat even to this day.

I think a reformer would say that the Western Church shouldn’t claim a monopoly on truth. There were serious problems in the Western Church and had been for several hundred years; read the Carmina Burana if you’d like some insight and details. These problems weren’t being addressed and people finally voted with their feet.

A good review of Church history will show this is not the case.

What “western church”? As far as I know there was only the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (Since the Schism in the XI Century)

The Christian church in the west that would later become he Roman Catholic Church, amongst others.

How would you would worship God in the V and X Century? You would go to a Catholic Church, which is subdued to the Pope, the Sacraments, the Veneration to Mary, the Saints, Images, etc.

Sure. Lutherans have no problem with the sacraments, and the other Roman Catholic distinctives hadn’t been made into dogma yet.

Which I think most protestants condemn these things nowadays.

Many Protestants have sacraments and devotion to a Mary of a sort.

Well If you think the Roman Catholic church was not all Wrong, in these times, then it was partially right in some issues and wrong in another ones, not totally right, then where was the “totally right” doctrine in all this time?

In scripture.

There was not something totally right in this issues during centuries?

I don’t understand the question.

Historical Evidence please that there was ever a Church before the XVI century apart the Orthodox Church who was not subdued to the pope, or the dogmas of the Catholic Church as the Veneration of Mary, the Eucharist, the Auricular Confession, etc.

And I know for long this story that protestants tell that Constantine Created the Catholic Church in the 300s, but I did not grasp it, although I did not see any historical evidence whatsoever that supported this idea, Constantine never claimed to create a new Church, in fact there are evidence of a “Catholic Church” before that, in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

Anyway, Let’s just for the sake of the argument that the Church corrupted in the 4th century, why the bishops did not protest and create another church? So there is another gap from 4th century to 16th century that the church corrupted?

Either way… If you admit that the Catholic Church was not all wrong… Then I think it is wrong some protestants condemn vehemently her until today, either way a protestant could not say she is wrong, unchristian and things like that.

Read any credible history of the Church. A good book that addresses the marginalization of Church history outside the bounds of the Roman Empire is The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins, who happens to be Catholic but is also an excellent historian. I think the picture will be much clearer for you.

Maybe you could provide some sources behind this story. Certainly the church existed in the West before Constantine.

Who is saying this exactly? Even if it were true for the sake of argument, the church existed plenty of other places before the 4th century and between the 4th and 16th century.

Again, who is saying this? I don’t know of anyone who tries to argue that the Catholic Church was “all wrong”–not saying it doesn’t exist though. If you provide some context, we could give you better answers.

Okay, now changing the subject.

Now how the Protestantism made a continuation of the Early Christian church once today protestant churches disagree in many things?

There are protestant churches who support abortion, others differ in the divinity of Christ, the existence of Hell, salvation and etc. They all claim to interpret the bible correctly and many of them seem faithful christians to me. I mean, they differ not only in secondary points, but I think they differ Which one of the protestants denominations truly continued the Early Christian Church?

The thing I’ve never understood about Protestantism is this. For 1500 yrs there was the Catholic Church, and then We are to believe that there was error and the reformation corrected the problem??? IIRC Jesus built his church on Peter.

These men died for what they knew, witnessed and preached. The early Catholic Church fathers are in line with the apostles teachings and it continued for 1500 + years. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So now your telling me that God (Jesus) didn’t know that his church was going to go off the rails until the 1500’s when it was corrected? Nonsense, I take Jesus the second person of the blessed Trinity at his word. His church is the correct church. From 33 a.d. Right through today. In my mind you don’t get to show up some 1500 years later and say from the apostles to the 1500’s something went horribly wrong. If you do the research the early church fathers would completely recognize the Catholic Church of today. I bet my soul that cannot be said for all the the Protestant denominations. They are all so very different in their teachings and all together can’t agree on everything. The argument that his church got it wrong after he left this world and ascended into heaven is one of the greatest insults to him personally of all time.

It survived in the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Celtic Church, the Nestorian Church, and the many and various other sects. They were all Christian, despite not being in perfect agreement with one another.

The claim that the Church was preserved infallible or perfectly unified is one that many of us (Protestants) do not make, and so we have no problem with the idea of the Church existing across denominational boundaries.

Please, I want a Consistent, Coherent, fully grounded and most important a Convincing answer to that question

Well, it’s consistent and coherent, but it does not really need to be convincing, because we are not trying to convert you.

A good question. From years attending sermons at an Anglican church I have not heard that being addressed. I think church history is generally ignored in Protestant denominations.

The Doctrine of the Catholic Church has always been ‘totally’ right. It was the actions of some that were wrong. Same as today. Not all are saints. The Church is made of Saints and sinners. Always has been, (Judas) and always will be. The Church itself is One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic. Maybe some things needed correction but the Reformation was NOT the way to do it. Look at the confusion that has followed it in the past 500 years. Their loss of Apostolic Succession and most of the Sacraments. So much division. While the Catholic Church is still, One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic Church with all Seven Sacraments. The Holy Spirit will always protect Christ’s Church from teaching error. God Bless, Memaw

=devonsams;12287222]Historical Evidence please that there was ever a Church before the XVI century apart the Orthodox Church who was not subdued to the pope, or the dogmas of the Catholic Church as the Veneration of Mary, the Eucharist, the Auricular Confession, etc.

orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox

The term Oriental Orthodox refers to the churches of Eastern Christian traditions that keep the faith of only the first three Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church—the councils of Nicea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus. The Oriental Orthodox churches rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451).
Thus, despite potentially confusing nomenclature, Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from the churches that collectively are referred to as Eastern Orthodoxy.

And I know for long this story that protestants tell that Constantine Created the Catholic Church in the 300s, but I did not grasp it, although I did not see any historical evidence whatsoever that supported this idea, Constantine never claimed to create a new Church, in fact there are evidence of a “Catholic Church” before that, in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

You typically will not find such a claim in the “magisterial” communions - Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed. Its “Great Apostasy” nonsense.

Anyway, Let’s just for the sake of the argument that the Church corrupted in the 4th century, why the bishops did not protest and create another church? So there is another gap from 4th century to 16th century that the church corrupted?

Why have an argument over something that didn’t happen?

Either way… If you admit that the Catholic Church was not all wrong… Then I think it is wrong some protestants condemn vehemently her until today, either way a protestant could not say she is wrong, unchristian and things like that.

Agreed!

Jon

I would disagree, at least when we are talking about the “magisterial” communions.

Jon

I think this statement pretty much sums up the question of the OP, which sadly completely contradicts the 17th chapter of John. and the vision of “church” through out the bible.

Prayers for “church unity”! :crossrc:

Peace!!!

I join my prayers to yours. :signofcross:

Jon

I think you just hit the proverbial nail on the head. All Christians were Cartholic Christians until the 16th century or whenever it actually was that Martin Luther came on the scene. Thus only one of two scenarios can possibly be correct: the first is that Christianity only began in about the 16th century and prior to that, all Christians were wrong. The other scenario is that the entire protestant reformation was sadly a heresy and terrible error and our protestant brothers and sisters should take a long, hard look at the only faith that can trace itself right back to Jesus!:thumbsup:

Oh dear. You are free to describe my beliefs as heretical and in error, but be assured that my faith does indeed trace right back to Jesus. You could even say that my salvation came through the Catholic Church since it was the means of transmitting that apostolic faith through the centuries. My Christian faith did not just burst out of nothing and nowhere 500 years ago.

I as a Catholic can say that I BELIEVE when Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. Now, I would say that would mean that the Church doesn’t need a reformation. When people try to ‘reform’ something that is infallible (The Church is infallible because He said so) we can only get a ‘church’ that is falling apart, the thousands of protestant denominations being the biggest example. Protestantism was invented in the 16th century, but the Catholic Church still exists today with the same sacraments as 2000 years ago. I don’t have to doubt Jesus words when he gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter and made his promise I stated above. To doubt this promise of Jesus, is to doubt Our Lord Jesus Himself.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.