history question

[d0c markus]

With the selling of church positions and the abuses of power by the catholic figure heads, and all the illegitimate children fathered by priests was the catholic church of the dark ages apostate?

Also during the western schism where you had 3 different popes (that was the western schism right?) how about then?

one more question, if the church was apostate what do you think of luther? Did he invoke reform within the church?

(please dont think this an attack i am curious)

 

[ps139]

With the selling of church positions and the abuses of power by the catholic figure heads, and all the illegitimate children fathered by priests was the catholic church of the dark ages apostate?

To answer this question you must realize that the Church did not teach abuses. IMO, this is akin to being in the year 2500 and saying "With the sexual scandals in the Church during the late 20th century, was the Church apostate? There is often a big difference (unfortunately) between what the Church teaches and what its members do.

one more question, if the church was apostate what do you think of luther? Did he invoke reform within the church?

I think Luther provoked reform - the Counter-reformation. It gave the Church a kick in the behind. I do not approve of Luther's methodology - breaking away. I like Erasmus, who tried to reform the Church from within.

 

[Veritas]

Well, I'll give you my opinion backed up by scripture. First off, dispite the personal moral failings of members of the clergy during any point in time, the Church Christ established can never be apostate. Why? Because in Matt. chapter16, Jesus told Peter that the gate of hades would never prevail against the Church He was building on the Rock of Peter. Jesus also told us He's be with us until the end of time. If the Church went apostate, then Jesus words were empty promises, weren't they? Also, the "dark ages" is a misnomer. I just finished reading an article about this period of history and it's amazing the amount of myth surrounding it. They are properly called the Middle Ages.

I don't know much about the various popes and the Great Schism. I would be curious about your sources, though. Perhaps others can be of help here.

My opinion of Luther is best left unsaid, but the era he issued in, the Revolt or what is more commonly known as the Reformation, didn't really work out. A "re-formation" would mean that which already existed would continue in a slightly different and better form. What happened though, was "de-formation". That which existed was abandoned in favor of something entirely different. The truth is, the Catholic Church did reform itself (witness the council of Trent). The problem with Protestantism is, that it has never stopped. It continues to fracture, split, dissolve, change, etc. Judging by it's "fruit", the Reformation started by Luther, is a dismal failure. Not only is there no corporal unity within, there is a huge gulf that separates many of the dissenting factions. When I listed to Christian radio or read various periodicals, I see or hear the words, "unbiblical, unscriptural, heretical, error-filled and false teaching" hurled at whomever the speaker/writer is against. How ironic, when you consider that they can't agree on many things!

 

[Woodsy]

Also, the "dark ages" is a misnomer. I just finished reading an article about this period of history and it's amazing the amount of myth surrounding it. They are properly called the Middle Ages.

Could you point me in the direction of that article? My Catholic studies have given me a real taste for debunking the popular anti-Catholic myths.

 

[Axion]

Could you point me in the direction of that article? My Catholic studies have given me a real taste for debunking the popular anti-Catholic myths.

This is a source site for the Middle Ages

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/rom_honorius.shtml

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa051799.htm

This site gives a short overview of the periods of the Dark Ages (440 - 1066), and the Middle Ages, (1066 - 1485), with pages giving more detail:

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/darkages.html

 

[KennySe]

And while all of these alleged abuses were taking place, the monarchs of the various nations were powerless to stop it.

How could a king with a mighty army stop these injustices upon their peasants, right?

 

[thereselittleflower]

With the selling of church positions and the abuses of power by the catholic figure heads, and all the illegitimate children fathered by priests was the catholic church of the dark ages apostate?

Also during the western schism where you had 3 different popes (that was the western schism right?) how about then?

one more question, if the church was apostate what do you think of luther? Did he invoke reform within the church?

(please dont think this an attack i am curious)

hi d0c markus!

First, No the Church WASN'T apostate . .

Apostate usually refers to individuals . ..

Here is Webster's definition:

\A*pos"tate\, n. [L. apostata, Gr. ?, fr. ?. See

{Apostasy}.]
1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to
which he before adhered; esp., one who has forsaken his
religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.
2. (R. C. Ch.) One who, after having received sacred orders,
renounces his clerical profession.

\A*pos"tate\, a.
Pertaining to, or characterized by, apostasy; faithless to
moral allegiance; renegade.
So spake the apostate angel. --Milton.
A wretched and apostate state. --Steele.

\A*pos"tate\, v. i. [L. apostatare.]
To apostatize. [Obs.]
We are not of them which apostate from Christ. --Bp.
Hall.

​

For this to apply to the Church, the Church would have had to apostasize from itself . . it would have had to formally renounce all it taught as true . .


The Church as a whole does not forsake the faith just because some of its members, even leaders, sin, even if they sin badly . .


The same issue with having more than one Pope at a time . . popes are human beings capable of personal error just as we all are . . that does not affect the fact that the seat of Peter continues, or the authority Christ invested His Church with . . it is possible to have anit-popes, (popes invalidly elected) which there have been several . . that does not affect the Chair of Peter or a validly elected pope . . It does create confusion for a time, but that confusion has always been resolved . .


And no, the Church was not apostate at the time of Luther, but it was in need of reform . . but any reform he invoked was from within . .the Counter Reformation . .

Luther I think could have been a powerful force for reform from within . . I personally beleive, from reading his writings, that he lacked the patience . .he was head strong, and impetuous . . and I think he did much harm to the body of Christ . ..



I think your sig line actually says all this very well . .

Don't leave Jesus because of Judas​

In comparison I would say this:

Don't reject the Catholic Church because of some bad popes . . .​

Judas was an apostle . .. you can't get much higher in God's chain of command than that . .. so priets, bishops, even popes who sin or lead sinful lives are not enuogh reason to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Woodsy]

This is a source site for the Middle Ages

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/rom_honorius.shtml

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa051799.htm

This site gives a short overview of the periods of the Dark Ages (440 - 1066), and the Middle Ages, (1066 - 1485), with pages giving more detail:

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/darkages.html

Thanks much, Ax!

 

[Benedicta00]

Markus,

Are all Protestant pastor with out sin?

 

[Michelina]

Doc, Some people of the period thought the 'great apostasy' of 1 Thessalonians was the Protestant Deformation. But it seems that great falling away would be closer to Our Lord's return, with a great "falling away from the Faith" before the end. The 'great apostasy' refers to a falling from The Faith, not moral disorders. They've always been around. We are free creatures.

8.12% of Our Lord's original apostles commited a terrible sin. God doesn't make us incapable of sin, just capable of not sinning.

 

[Veritas]

This is a source site for the Middle Ages

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/rom_honorius.shtml

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa051799.htm

This site gives a short overview of the periods of the Dark Ages (440 - 1066), and the Middle Ages, (1066 - 1485), with pages giving more detail:

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/darkages.html

Axion,

In all due respect, I wouldn't trust all secular sources, especially the BBC...I'd say the same thing about CNN. They tend to be biased against religious history. The term "dark" was coined by those atheist/agnostic scientists who were trying to down-play the role the Church (and men of faith) played in scientific endeavors and discoveries. The term was later picked up by latter-day Reformationists and modern Evangelicalism to cast a negative light on the Catholic Church leading up to the Reformation.

The article came from the October/November issue of The American Enterprise entitled False Conflict by Rodney Stark. Here are a few quotes from the article you might find of interest:

"Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world."

"....real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develope into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe--The so-called Dark Ages."

"Far from Christianity plunging Europe into an era of ignorance and backwardness, so much technological progress took place during this era that by no later than the thirteenth century, European technology surpassed anything to be found elsewhere in the world...The term "Scientific Revolution" is in many ways as misleading as "Dark Ages". Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church."

And finally:
"The identification of the era beginning around 1600 as the "Enlightenment" is as inappropriate as the identification of the millennium before it as the "Dark Ages". And both imputations were made by the same people--intellectuals who wished to associate faith with darkness and secular humanism with light."
I might also add that the faith implied here is the Catholic Church. It would also be accurate to say that most Protestants think that the Reformation would also be associated with "light"...ie uncovering the "real" Christianity that had been hidden from people by the dark, evil Catholic Church. Afterall, the Reformation occurred right at the beginnings of the so-called "Enlightenment" and really could be considered a part of it. Trouble is, this era was marked with a disintigration of the Christian faith brought on by the "historical-critical" method of biblical interpretation.

Well enough for now! I would highly recomment this article. If you can get a back issue..that would be great!