Can we accurately say/prove there was an Apostasy?

[AeonJ]

I've gone over this with Catholics who say they also have a literal Apostilic Succession.

They say an Apostle is just another name for Bishop, so they don't need apostles nowadays.

They say everyone that broke off are just heretics including the Eastern Orthodox.

They seem to have iron clad defenses of (facts?) that seems to render them (un)reachable/teachable.

I'm even a little shaken in faith that they have these answers to thier historic defense of being the Church. ANy help??

[3DOP]

I've gone over this with Catholics who say they also have a literal Apostilic Succession.

They say an Apostle is just another name for Bishop, so they don't need apostles nowadays.

They say everyone that broke off are just heretics including the Eastern Orthodox.

They seem to have iron clad defenses of (facts?) that seems to render them (un)reachable/teachable.

I'm even a little shaken in faith that they have these answers to thier historic defense of being the Church. ANy help??

Heresy occurs when a Catholic stubbornly affirms false doctrine. Schism occurs when persons divide themselves from the visible unity of the Universal Church. Eastern Orthodox are more accurately said to be schismatic, than heretical. I know the words get used quite interchangably, but it is important to recognize that the doctrinal difficulties Catholics have with Orthodoxy are few.

If the Protestants were correct in splitting away from Rome, then a Restoration possibly needed to occur. In my opinion, you need to defend the beginnings of Protestantism if you would undermine Catholic claims. Not being satisfied with Protestant claims against Rome, I cannot turn to Mormonism. It isn't even an option. I am Catholic by default. Happily so I would add.

3DOP

[Lachoneus]

I've gone over this with Catholics who say they also have a literal Apostilic Succession.

They say an Apostle is just another name for Bishop, so they don't need apostles nowadays.

They say everyone that broke off are just heretics including the Eastern Orthodox.

They seem to have iron clad defenses of (facts?) that seems to render them (un)reachable/teachable.

I'm even a little shaken in faith that they have these answers to thier historic defense of being the Church. ANy help??

I have found these books very informative on the subject.

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity

Early Christians in Disarray

When the Lights Went Out

[Joseph Antley]

In the first century, there were Apostles. After that, there were no Apostles.

In the first century, there was continuing revelation through authorized servants of God. After that, revelation ceased.

In the first century, doctrines were clarified by the voice of God. After that, doctrines were "clarified" by councils of men and written in creeds.

In my opinion, the greatest evidence for a Great Apostasy is the fact that the Bible only includes writings up to the end of the first century A.D. God did not quit speaking 2,000 years ago; his works are endless and his words never cease.

Also, there's the simple fact that God has revealed to us that there was a Great Apostasy.

[John Larsen]

In the first century, there were Apostles. After that, there were no Apostles.

In the first century, there was continuing revelation through authorized servants of God. After that, revelation ceased.

In the first century, doctrines were clarified by the voice of God. After that, doctrines were "clarified" by councils of men and written in creeds.

In my opinion, the greatest evidence for a Great Apostasy is the fact that the Bible only includes writings up to the end of the first century A.D. God did not quit speaking 2,000 years ago; his works are endless and his words never cease.

Also, there's the simple fact that God has revealed to us that there was a Great Apostasy.

Similar changes can be noted in Mormonism. Why is change in the Catholic church a sign of apostasy and change in the Mormon church a sign of "continuing revelation"? There were no apostles in the Church before Christ and it was still the Church of God, why couldn't God change it again?

[Joseph Antley]

Similar changes can be noted in Mormonism. Why is change in the Catholic church a sign of apostasy and change in the Mormon church a sign of "continuing revelation"? There were no apostles in the Church before Christ and it was still the Church of God, why couldn't God change it again?

The LDS Church claims continuing revelation. The things I listed, as far as I know, we were never claimed to have been revealed to the Catholic Church by God.

[John Larsen]

The LDS Church claims continuing revelation. The things I listed, as far as I know, we were never claimed to have been revealed to the Catholic Church by God.

I will let our Catholic friends address this issue, but I am certain from my reading on the topic that Catholics believe their Church to be guided by God through "Revelation".

[Smith]

I've gone over this with Catholics who say they also have a literal Apostilic Succession.

They say an Apostle is just another name for Bishop, so they don't need apostles nowadays.

They say everyone that broke off are just heretics including the Eastern Orthodox.

They seem to have iron clad defenses of (facts?) that seems to render them (un)reachable/teachable.

I'm even a little shaken in faith that they have these answers to thier historic defense of being the Church. ANy help??

If there was no apostacy, no falling away from truth, then why, when one takes even just a quick look around the shattered Christian world, does one see literally thousands of different Christian denominations? To me that alone is overwhelming evidence of an apostacy.

What one needs to ask oneself is:- If Christ established his Church, how was this done? Were changes done in the same way? If what was originally created man subsequently corrupted, then how would this be fixed? By men (with the best of intentions) setting up what they see as corrections or by a new dispensation from God? God made, man broke, God fixed. Simple. Some say it ain't broke. They ain't opening their eyes.

[John Larsen]

If there was no apostacy, no falling away from truth, then why, when one takes even just a quick look around the shattered Christian world, does one see literally thousands of different Christian denominations? To me that alone is overwhelming evidence of an apostacy.

What one needs to ask oneself is:- If Christ established his Church, how was this done? Were changes done in the same way? If what was originally created man subsequently corrupted, then how would this be fixed? By men (with the best of intentions) setting up what they see as corrections or by a new dispensation from God? God made, man broke, God fixed. Simple. Some say it ain't broke. They ain't opening their eyes.

There are literally 100s of splinter groups and break-offs from the Mormon Church. Is that a sign of Mormon apostasy since there are so many "Mormon" sects? How is the one "shattering" evidence of apostasy and the other not?

[Joseph Antley]

I will let our Catholic friends address this issue, but I am certain from my reading on the topic that Catholics believe their Church to be guided by God through "Revelation".

Yet they are unable to point to when God said apostles were no longer needed, or that the various bishops in the early Church were able to decide what was true doctrine, or to when God told them that he wasn't going to reveal anymore scripture.

There are no changes of that magnitude in the LDS Church that we cannot point to what exactly God said about it, when he said it, and to whom he said it.

Continuing revelation in the RCC and in the LDS Church are vastly different. LDS follow the biblical model of God speaking his will to prophets. The RCC do not.

[PacMan]

Similar changes can be noted in Mormonism. Why is change in the Catholic church a sign of apostasy and change in the Mormon church a sign of "continuing revelation"? There were no apostles in the Church before Christ and it was still the Church of God, why couldn't God change it again?

Quite simply, because the Church after Jesus was NOT the "Church of God." It was Christ's church, and apostles were a distinct authority in that church. So unless Jesus has dropped ownership, your argument falls rather flat.

[HiJolly]

In the first century, there were Apostles. After that, there were no Apostles.

In the first century, there was continuing revelation through authorized servants of God. After that, revelation ceased.

In the first century, doctrines were clarified by the voice of God. After that, doctrines were "clarified" by councils of men and written in creeds.

In my opinion, the greatest evidence for a Great Apostasy is the fact that the Bible only includes writings up to the end of the first century A.D. God did not quit speaking 2,000 years ago; his works are endless and his words never cease.

Also, there's the simple fact that God has revealed to us that there was a Great Apostasy.

Agree with all except #2. Revelation did NOT cease. The Keys of the priesthood were lost, but revelation has always been, and ever shall be. By the time they declared Donatism to be apostate, it was lost from Church leadership (IMO).

HiJolly

[Joseph Antley]

Agree with all except #2. Revelation did NOT cease. The Keys of the priesthood were lost, but revelation has always been, and ever shall be. By the time they declared Donatism to be apostate, it was lost from Church leadership (IMO).

HiJolly

I thought it was understood, but I guess I should have clarified. I didn't mean personal revelation; I was referring to revelation to the world, given to those called by God.

[TOmNossor]

I have found these books very informative on the subject.

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity

Early Christians in Disarray

When the Lights Went Out

I am a big fan of the first two and I thiink I have read the third.

I like to include 2 books by Catholics:

The Rise of the Papacy by Robert Eno

AND

From Apostles to Bishops by Francis Sullivan (a Catholic Priest).

Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote in the 1800â??s an essay call On the Development of Christian Doctrine. To be Catholic and acknowledge the facts is to recognize development in doctrine and authority. That the seeds of mono-episcopate Bishopricks were contained in the communal leadership of Overseers(Bishops)/Elders(Presbuters-Priests). And the seeds of the primacy of Rome were contained in the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome and the initial piety/important of Rome that grew to primacy.

Similar changes can be noted in Mormonism. Why is change in the Catholic church a sign of apostasy and change in the Mormon church a sign of "continuing revelation"? There were no apostles in the Church before Christ and it was still the Church of God, why couldn't God change it again?

I will let our Catholic friends address this issue, but I am certain from my reading on the topic that Catholics believe their Church to be guided by God through "Revelation".

It is certainly true that LDS like Catholics do not have the SIMPLE succession of Apostolic authority most LDS and Catholics think they (we) have.

I would suggest there are very good reasons to deny that Catholics believe in â??revelationâ? continuing within their church. I usually add the following qualifiers and make it, â??Supernatural Public Revelation.â? This is absent in the CLAIMS of the Catholic Church and present in the CLAIMS of the CoJCoLDS. It is also present within the Early Christian Church whether one examines this church from a Catholic or a LDS perspective.

To embrace a development theory and be Catholic one IMO cannot deny revelatory interaction between God and His Catholic Church. Many Catholic scholars do attempt to deny this and have some reason for doing so. During Vatican I Papal infallibility was clearly defined as not revealing something NEW because there was no new revelation. Before this Catholics from as early as the 2nd century pointed to â??Traditionâ? in ways that lead to later Catholics claiming that there was no new revelation and could not be any. Cardinal Newmanâ??s essay had a number of critics. One critic of note if anyone is interested is Orestes Brownson. IMO scholarly Catholics in 1750 (Brownson was much later) would almost all align themselves with a Brownson preservation of Tradition sentiment rather than a Newman Development sentiment. Even today you SELDOM hear Catholic apologists (professionals at least) invoke development. Instead, they read into the early church things that Catholic and non-Catholic scholars have long agreed are not there.

The succession crisis in the CoJCoLDS was by numerous accounts solved through divine revelation to multiple folks. Brigham Young was transfigured into Joseph Smith as he explained that the keys were held by the Twelve. In Catholic history, I see a development from Roman importance to First among equals to Prime. I see no claims for revelation as the guiding reason for this development. I see different reasons offered for this development (dual apostolic foundation, Peter and Paulâ??s martyrdom, Peterine primacy, and even importance of the city).

In the end, an informed Catholic must embrace development. An informed LDS must recognize that Joseph Smith did not make it clear to the church he founded that the keys were with the twelve. LDS point to a D&C passage and say, â??yes he did.â? Catholics point to 1st Clement and say â??yes he did,â? but most LDS and Catholic scholars acknowledge that neither of these nor anything else makes the simple succession narratives historically sound. I believe the LDS claim is stronger by a significant amount due to the presence (claimed presence) of revelation for the LDS and the general claimed absence of revelation for the Catholic. More intelligent and informed folks disagree with me.

Charity, TOm

[Jason]

Proving that there was an apostacy is the wrong approach. Contention is the spirit of the devil, and little good can come from tearing down the beliefs of others.

It is much more constructive to prove that there was a restoration by viewing and enjoying the fruits thereof.

Rather than trying to prove where the power of God is not to be found, it is much more important to find it.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Our understanding of "apostasy" is heavily weighted toward the concept of divine authority. In the LDS view, the loss of the apostles was the loss of apostolic authority, from which there was no substitute for that authority. No well-intentioned Christians or Bishops, even through sound reasoning and study of the scripture, no matter how correct, could not definitively reestablish the Church. That it was without the divine authority.

[saemo]

In the first century, there were Apostles. After that, there were no Apostles.

The Apostles passed on their authority, by the laying on of hands, to bishops. When we speak of Apostolic Succession, this is what we are referring to. This authority, we call Holy Orders. The bishop is anointed and ordained. We believe our ordained are given gifts of the Holy Spirit. These include the authority to act in the person of Christ, and the authority to teach and guide the laity of the Church. The bishops have carried on the duties and authority of Apostles, given to them by Jesus.

In the first century, there was continuing revelation through authorized servants of God. After that, revelation ceased.

We believe the Holy Spirit continues to guide God's church, which is, revelation.

In the first century, doctrines were clarified by the voice of God. After that, doctrines were "clarified" by councils of men and written in creeds.

We believe that the Holy Spirit guides our councils and the individuals who comprise them.

In my opinion, the greatest evidence for a Great Apostasy is the fact that the Bible only includes writings up to the end of the first century A.D.

The Catholic Church assembled the Bible. Do you really believe that we said, "God stopped talking here"?

God did not quit speaking 2,000 years ago; his works are endless and his words never cease.

Yes, this is our belief as well.

Also, there's the simple fact that God has revealed to us that there was a Great Apostasy.

Which of course, is not Catholic belief, and we see no proof for it. Quite the opposite. We see that God has kept His Church alive, well and intact. Despite all the failings of us humans.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

The RCC has no tenable claim to authority. There is a questionable succession of Bishop Linus while John, an apostle with the apostolic authority that Christ had given him was alive. If Peter was the leader of the Church, and passed that authority to Linus, where is John in all of this? And why wasn't there Revelation revealed to John in placement of Linus or Clement? Also, that would mean that John would be subject to Linus. Why is it that it is John that is spoken of more than Linus in the scriptures and with more authority than Linus? Moreover, Peter didn't have a thing to do with Linus... it was Paul that ordained him the Bishop of Rome. How in the world did Peter pass on anything to Linus?

Or perhaps how pope Benedict IX, A.D. 1033 passed on his papacy. After committing adulteries and homicides, he put up and sold the papacy at auction to a man named John, who became pope Gregory VI.

[saemo]

The RCC has no tenable claim to authority. There is a questionable succession of Bishop Linus while John, an apostle with the apostolic authority that Christ had given him was alive. If Peter was the leader of the Church, and passed that authority to Linus, where is John in all of this? And why wasn't there Revelation revealed to John in placement of Linus or Clement? Also, that would mean that John would be subject to Linus. Why is it that it is John that is spoken of more than Linus in the scriptures and with more authority than Linus? Moreover, Peter didn't have a thing to do with Linus... it was Paul that ordained him the Bishop of Rome. How in the world did Peter pass on anything to Linus?

All of the Apostles were equal, with Peter designated as have primacy among the equals. The bishops are successors of the Apostles. Linus succeeded Peter, as the leader of the church in Rome.

In 97AD there was serious dissensions in the church at Corinth. St Clement of Rome wrote the church in Corinth, with an authority calling them to peace. St. John was alive at this time in Ephesus, but never interfered with the church in Corinth.

Or perhaps how pope Benedict IX, A.D. 1033 passed on his papacy. After committing adulteries and homicides, he put up and sold the papacy at auction to a man named John, who became pope Gregory VI.

Certainly Catholics see Benedict IX as a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Pope Gregory VI was removed from the papacy by the Council at Sutri and the Germon bishop Suidger became Pope Clement II.

I should also note the Rome is not the only church with valid Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox churches have this claim as well, which, the church in Rome recognizes as valid.

[daz2]

I do not think it is possible to "prove" in an obective sense that a great apostasy occurred. I do not think it is possible to "prove" in an objective sense that God exists either or what God's characteristics. I do think it is possible to convince ourselves--or prove to ourselves--that an apostasy occurred or that God exists.

Most devout Catholics I know are comfortable believing that apostolic succession has continued unbroken through the present, notwithstanding some difficult transitions and notwithstanding some sins that Popes or Cardinals in the past may have committed. As we Latter-day Saints sometimes say, the inability of members and leaders of the Church to live its teachings does not disprove the truth of the Church.

Just as we Latter-day Saints often claim that, this time, the Church has been restored never to be "taken" again from the earth, many nonrestoration Christians believe that the Church was established in Jesus' day to continue forever (notwithstanding apostasies of individuals).

And, many of my devout Catholic friends believe that its leadership is guided by the Holy Spirit in a manner similar to the way many Latter-day Saints believe ours is guided (through study, analysis, prayers and answers from the still small voice to our leaders).

[Flyonthewall]

Since proving the apostasy involves a non-tangible, non-visible item, namely the keys of authority, there is no way possible to prove accurately to the satisfaction of everyone, that there was one.

Each individual will have to study it out and come to their own conclusion. The apostasy will have to be taken on faith.

[Cold Steel]

They say everyone that broke off are just heretics including the Eastern Orthodox.

I attended two Greek Orthodox courses, each about six weeks (once a week for 2.5 hours). During one session, I took a buddy of mine who is a Catholic. During an intermission, he approached a fellow who was a member of the Orthodox faith to inquire as to why he was so bitter against the Catholic church. The other fellow was marrying a Catholic woman and she was attending with him. Although my friend was personable, the Orthodox fellow could not contain how he felt about Catholics. At one point, however, they took the time to introduce themselves. The other guy was an NCO working at a local military base; my buddy, on the other hand, happened to be a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy. Instantly the whole framework of the discussion changed. The Orthodox fellow became respectful and I noticed my friend took on an uncharacteristic air of superiority (though almost negligible, it was there). In other words, the discussion took on some formality that was not originally there.

It's too bad that rank had to be a factor into having a civil discussion, but so it was. Interestingly, my friend was thinking about ditching the Navy to become a Paulist priest. He was the Navy's youngest graduate of MIT and was one of the brightest Naval officers I've ever met. He eventually gave the Navy up and the last I heard from him, he was attending a Catholic University.

The priest who was giving the lectures also didn't attempt to hide his disdain. He said the Catholics had gone through the seven ecumenical councils with the Orthodox and they had agreed on all the key issues. Afterwords, however, they began to bring in all sorts of innovations that had not been part of those councils. They launched the crucades, practiced indulgences and adopted a strict code of celibacy which, he said, corrupted their church beyond all reform. One of the Orthodox theologians, a convert, noted in one of his books that to Protestants, Orthodoxy and Catholicism were two parts of the same coin. But to the Orthodox, he said, Catholicism and Protestantism are two sides of the same coin, since one came from the other.

LDS say that God has NEVER had a church on the Earth, except He has provided revelation. When I was a Protestant, it was a question I asked every pastor and priest I ever talked to. In high school, I went to a dance at a Catholic church and it was so loud, I had to remain outside, where I had a very nice chat with a priest who blew cigarette smoke in my face the whole time. But I endured it and asked why God no longer sent apostles or provided revelation. Each pastor and priest had his own ideas, but they all concluded that it was no longer needed. Finally, when I met an LDS family in Utah (friends of my father), I hit them up with the same question. For the entire time I was at their ranch, I soaked Mormonism up like a sponge. I liked the idea that revelation was flowing again, but had problems with their being the only true church. Only after it was explained that non-members don't go to hell or suffer for not being Mormons, then I eased up and eventually I joined the church.

The only way to prove an apostasy is to prove that the Restoration was valid. Once one proves Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, everything else falls into place and you don't have to worry about all the subsets that we're constantly discussing here. We have witnesses, we have fulfilled prophecy, we have personal revelationâ??and thus the apostasy takes care of itself. Proving the apostasy does not prove Mormonism, but proving Mormonism proves the apostasy.

[David Waltz]

Hi Tom,

In addition to the two books you mentioned, I would like to recommend two more:

Bishop Lists By Robert Lee Williams

http://books.google.com/books?id=LLW6qVX3D...p+Lists#PPA1,M1

Apostolic Succession â?? Is It True? By Felix L. Cirlot

http://books.google.com/books?id=cODROwAAC...s_r&cad=0_2

Newmanâ??s An Essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine, is available online (free):

HTML: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

PDF: http://books.google.com/books?id=EF4XAAAAY...elopment+Newman

Concerning this issue of development, I recently â??discoveredâ? a very early example in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzen:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/01/...-theory-of.html

At the end of the thread, I provided the following from the pen of a quite famous Eastern Orthodox scholar:

The spiritual experience of the Church is also a form of revelation, and through this experience the Spirit makes clear His own dignity. (George Florovsky, The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century, online document -http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_1.htm#_Toc3723870.)

Grace and peace,

David

[mormon fool]

TOm and David,

Nice to see your book recommendations on this thread. I have read Bishops' Lists and From Apostles to Bishops and even posted excerpts of a review on my blog.

I am trying to get out a draft of my review essay on Nibley's Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity in the next few days. It is hard to write when I get so many new leads. I would love to get some feedback from either of you.

[TOmNossor]

Hi Tom,

In addition to the two books you mentioned, I would like to recommend two more:

Bishop Lists By Robert Lee Williams

http://books.google.com/books?id=LLW6qVX3D...p+Lists#PPA1,M1

Apostolic Succession â?? Is It True? By Felix L. Cirlot

http://books.google.com/books?id=cODROwAAC...s_r&cad=0_2

Newmanâ??s An Essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine, is available online (free):

HTML: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

PDF: http://books.google.com/books?id=EF4XAAAAY...elopment+Newman

Concerning this issue of development, I recently â??discoveredâ? a very early example in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzen:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/01/...-theory-of.html

At the end of the thread, I provided the following from the pen of a quite famous Eastern Orthodox scholar:

Grace and peace,

David

Hello David,

I need to read Cirlot which I think you have recommended to me before. It thought Bishop List was a little more abstract than the others, but it was interesting (especially since the author was a Protestant).

I just reread your post you linked to. I was more impressed with it the second time (which is to say that I was fairly impressed with it this time and not as much the first time, but that was likely due to my less focused reading before) than I was the first. I think I might send it to my Sedavacantist friend and see what he makes of it.

Concerning â??Revelationâ? I find it difficult to align â??no new revelationâ? with â??doctrinal development guided by the Holy Spirit.â? I like FiLtER Boyâ??s (aka Editor Boy, aka â?¦, why does he try to confuse me so?) statement, â??We say that revelation is closed because we have all the information. We say that revelation continues because we have yet to understand it all.â? It is perhaps my LDS goggles that make it difficult for me to say, God revealed all, God reveals nothing new, AND God reveals the understanding of the all he previously revealed. To me, if it comes from God and it is for the entire church, it is revelation, and my creation of the term â??Supernatural Public Revelationâ? vs. â??Natural Revelationâ? is my attempt to differentiate (I use â??Natural Revelationâ? to mean the intellectual process spirit guided men employ to resolve doctrinal conflict, not as it is customarily used).

Of course, I have half a dozen professional Catholic apologists denying doctrinal development by insisting that the early church was like todayâ??s Catholic Church to help me see problems with DD.

I am currently reading Dunnâ??s The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition. In addition to what I expected to find concerning Justification and â?¦, I am continuing to be thrust into the position that conflict among Christâ??s Apostles is part (or much) of the â??Why?â? of the apostasy. This is a hard thing to embrace for me as if feels like â??speaking not well of the Lordâ??s anointed.â? In addition to this, I am well aware that there was conflict within the Twelve at the beginning of the CoJCoLDS. But, for whatever reason, I keep coming back to this as an answer for a question I think LDS have not addressed well, â??WHY did the Apostasy happen?â?

Charity, TOm