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?
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.
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.
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
Catholicism is all biblical?
Where is immaculate conception is the bible.
Lets start there
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Where does it say she was conceived without sin?
And the amount of work or screaming louder isn’t a convincing defense IMO.
so no evidence?
Why would the angel declare her blessed among women? Where else is that done in scripture?
The Catholic Church Jesus Christ founded is the evidence.
And that has always proven to be a lousy argument.
got it no evidence
How bout Queen of Heaven
No no no not how it works. Answer the questions. We don’t do it the protestant way
Would you become Catholic if you found out Jesus founded the Catholic Church and Catholic Dogma is Infallible?
There is no evidence of sinless in the text
He didn’t do no
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.