I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.
It is a fascinating subject:
Those wanting to point Christianity in a different direction, are obliged to point to an era in which the church went corrupt so they contend they are returning Christianity to how it was before it was corrupted.
But none of the apostasies they claim ever stack up in history.
Take One of the ideas repeated ad Nauseam is constantine was the bad guy, who mixed up christianity with paganism and took it off the rails. Those that study it could never believe that. Study of such as anasthasius "life of Anthony" or a good book "the apostasy that never was" shows it was simply not true. The doctrine did not change.
There is a wide variety of bad guys identified, but no evidence ever succeeds. Some groups even contend that Paul took it off the rails! The problem they then have , is deciding what they can trust. Because without such as Iraneus, we would not know who the gospel writers were, so reject Iraneus, and you no longer have gospels. Accept him ,and not only accept Paul, but alos you must accept tradition "stay true to tradtion we taught you" and the church as the vehicle of passage ie "the foundation of truth is the church"
Indeed one approach taken at the reformation is that "sola scriptura" is by itself is a return to early church from a corrupted one..
There are several problems of course:
Firstly the church never was sola scriptura, in respect of new testament, indeed way back with such as Iraneus the truth handed down by apostolic succession , ie tradition "paradosis, handing down" is seen as the early church vehicle.
Second- the doctrines that "sola scriptura "buffs proclaim are never those of the early church anyway. Reading such as ignatius to Smyrneans, those taught by the apostles, believed both in a sacramental eucharist, which was the real flesh of Jesus - and that the sacrament is only valid if performed by a bishop in succession!
Third that losing all but scriptura: all seem to think scripture means different even opposite things, so how can it be a return from a corruption, if it ends in many different places on doctrine?
Fascinating to study.