Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[Spammer]

The notion that Catholicism was formed in the 1st Century is a matter of belief, not a matter of evidence. Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp were Catholics. They did believe there was a catholic Church --- but not a Catholic Church.

If by 'catholic' we mean, not only 'universal', but also a religion that is Christocentric, hierarchical (bishop, priest, and deacon), liturgical (led by the bishop or priest with responses by the people), and which celebrates the eucharist on an altar in the sanctuary, then such a religion was most definitely formed in the 1st Century. That is a fact, attested to by the writings of Apostolic Fathers such as Clement and Ignatius, and the Didache. Justin Martyr in the 160s CE also described this kind of tradition and identified it as his own religion, both in Rome when he wrote and in Palestine when he was converted thirty years earlier.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Spammer

[3DOP]

Yes, as I recall, it is.

I would look forward to that. I don't really see how you could do it because this is so very far in antiquity. For example, genealogies from that time are typically considered legendary rather than factual -- although perhaps some might be factual, it would be hard to prove.

Hi again Steinman,

There is an important reason that I ask if the angelic ordination of John the Baptist is Latter-day revelation. You said earlier that the apostasy occurred very early, in the first centuries. So when was the Book of Mormon made available to Old World Christians? Was it ever made available? It can't be apostasy to fail to recognize what has not been revealed. That is why before I could declare any apostasy, I would need to see that the early Christians rejected that which was revealed. I could not call it a falling away if they fail to have information that was unrevealed. I think there is an understandable failure to restrict the data we can reasonably expect the first century church to have acted upon.

But what does almost total apostasy mean when Jesus heals lepers, and then sends them to the priests "for a testimony unto them (the authoritative priesthood)". Think of how often the Gospels demonstrate that the Jewish hierarchy still held priestly authority even as they plot the death of Christ. Before that Zachary, John's Father was performing his priestly duties in the "order of his course" as a Levitical son of the familiy of Abia (Abijah). He was in the Jerusalem Temple called King Herod's, or if you please, "My Father's House", when the angel informed him of the conception of a son. Joseph and Mary take their newborn to who before they go into Egypt? A Levitical priest, a holy priest, St. Simeon, who accepts their offering according to the law of Moses.

Jesus never challenged the authority of the priests of the law. According to the accounts we have in the Gospel, Jesus told his inquiring disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees as to what they say, but not to do what they do. Why? How could they still have authority, hypocrites that they were? In the context of a scathing denunciation of their hypocrisy, Our Lord balances possible misconceptions when he declares to his disciples that even though the high priest be a cad, he still "sitteth in Moses' seat" (Mt. 20?).

There is much more. I don't have a problem with concluding that apostasy was nearly total. But clearly, a nearly total apostasy did not extinguish the Levitical priesthood. Signs and wonders accompanied the end of the authority of the Levitical priesthood. Having exhorted Pilate for the crucifixion of the Son of God, their followed earthquake and unearthly darkness, and the veil of the Temple which separated the priests from the people was ripped in two by an invisible hand. THAT is what accompanied total apostasy under the Old Covenant. You could weep for Tammuz. You could offer worship to bugs. You could offer your children as living sacrifices in the fires of Moloch without any need for priestly Restoration. Such apostasies are not total.

In my opinion, the New Testament teaches us that we should be very wary about making a rash judgment against God's ordained officers. If we used the same standards to judge Israel that are used against the early Christians, the children of Aaron would have lost the priesthood before they gained a king! Flyonthewall has offered the idea that God is less merciful in our day. What I like about that suggestion is that it at least acknowledges that the "crimes" committed by the early Christians are far less grievous than those under which the Levitical priesthood remained continuous.

In addition to having had frightening, but meaningful miracles to show the end of the priests of Levi, God providentially allowed the Romans to destroy the Temple within the lifetime of the Apostles. There is nothing like that to indicate God's displeasure with the early Christians. Not one sign from heaven. For failing to worship Caesar, good Christians, men and women, boys and girls, endured tortured and are martyred for the name of Christ by the thousands over a period of almost 300 years. Finally, the Evil Empire which crucified the Jewish Messiah, is converted to what you would have to say is apostate Christianity! How can I believe that God will pull the priesthood because they mistakenly baptized babies while they convert pagan Rome to belief in His Son? Faulty as you would say our doctrines are, an early apostasy doesn't seem compatible with early church history. Where are the signs and wonders to show God's anger? If there is any miracle, it is that the early church, against all foreseeable circumstances emerged from three dark centuries of hatred and persecution with a crown of victory over the enemies of God who had been vanquished, not by the sword, but by love and a visible witness to their faith, which is the victory that overcomes the world. That's my sign. That's my miracle that points me the way! Can a corrupt tree can bear such fruit?

I can be more comprehensive if need be about Old Testament Israelite horrors or assurances of a continuous Levitical Priesthood if necessary. Hopefully that is not necessary now. Later, I hope to address FlyOnTheWall's concerns offering reasons why God would seem to be as merciful as ever toward His covenant children today as He was in the past. Using Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers, I would also try to develop reasons for why the early church adopted specific practices and teachings that were mentioned by Yep, and are disagreeable to many non-Catholics.

Late for work...easy day though. No traffic down here in the Land of Independence where we are celebrating our taxation with representation.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited July 4, 2012 by 3DOP

[CASteinman]

If by 'catholic' we mean, not only 'universal', but also a religion that is Christocentric, hierarchical (bishop, priest, and deacon), liturgical (led by the bishop or priest with responses by the people), and which celebrates the eucharist on an altar in the sanctuary, then such a religion was most definitely formed in the 1st Century.

Yes, if we redefine the way you do, then the LDS Church today may also be considered Catholic. Though it is not.

[CASteinman]

There is an important reason that I ask if the angelic ordination of John the Baptist is Latter-day revelation. You said earlier that the apostasy occurred very early, in the first centuries.

I think we have crossed wires. I thought that I was responding to a question about the apostasy in the old testament -- whether it was total. That is why I referred to John the Baptist -- the first character in the New Testament. John the Baptist was important to the restoration of the Gospel in New Testament times as the forerunner of Christ. He was, in a sense, that times "Joseph Smith".

I was not referring to the apostasy occurring as early as John the Baptist. However, I think the New Testament shows apostasy underway, right from the start. I recall the first major apostasy was in Christ's lifetime when He turned to His Apostles and asked "Will ye also go away?"

[Spammer]

Yes, if we redefine the way you do, then the LDS Church today may also be considered Catholic. Though it is not.

I'm just describing what Clement, Ignatius, et al described. There's no redefinition here. You can read it for yourself. It's quite obvious, except for those with an agenda.

[CASteinman]

So when was the Book of Mormon made available to Old World Christians? Was it ever made available?

It would have been in the 1830's. No later than 1837 in the case of England and not long after in the case of Continental Europe.

It can't be apostasy to fail to recognize what has not been revealed. That is why before I could declare any apostasy, I would need to see that the early Christians rejected that which was revealed. I could not call it a falling away if they fail to have information that was unrevealed. I think there is an understandable failure to restrict the data we can reasonably expect the first century church to have acted upon.

I completely agree and never considered that to be part of the issue.

But what does almost total apostasy mean when Jesus heals lepers, and then sends them to the priests "for a testimony unto them (the authoritative priesthood)".

Jesus appears to have been a pretty observant Jew under the Law. And had respect for the institutions established by Himself in the Old Testament. This is a separate issue from whether there had been an apostasy. I get your view -- but I feel like we are looking at things from two different perspectives entirely. My perspective, for example, includes that notion that apostasy can occur even if outward displays are similar to the True Church.

There is much more. I don't have a problem with concluding that apostasy was nearly total.

I should clarify what I meant by "pretty much total", because this seems to me to be what you would consider to be a narrow passage by which the True Church would persist.

That was not what I meant. What I meant was that it is possible for there to be a general apostasy that applies so generally that the True Church (or whatever you want to call the organization) is gone and yet there may persist individuals here and there who have the authority of God, either by stubbornness or by angelic ministration, but who are not authorized to offer the ordinances of the Gospel to others, generally and there is no grand Church organization associated with that authority left to persist into the future. In essence these are one-off instances that may exist according to some hidden wisdom in the Lord or as remnants of the True Church (even still officiating as such) that have not died off yet. A few examples of such people you may be familiar with would be Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius -- all Bishops, but without authority from God to designate new Bishops or to lead the Church.

But clearly, a nearly total apostasy did not extinguish the Levitical priesthood.

It may persist off the earth, I suppose. But on the earth it was lost as far as I can tell.

THAT is what accompanied total apostasy under the Old Covenant.

We definitely do not see things the same and I notice that you cite instances that are not described as related to any sort of apostasy. I am well aware that it is a traditional view that the rendering of the veil in the Temple signified the Jews were in apostasy. But I do not believe that was exactly the intent. The same thing could have happened even if Israel was not in apostasy. In my view.

In my opinion, the New Testament teaches us that we should be very wary about making a rash judgment against God's ordained officers. If we used the same standards to judge Israel that are used against the early Christians, the children of Aaron would have lost the priesthood before they gained a king!

I do not understand why you say that.

God providentially allowed the Romans to destroy the Temple within the lifetime of the Apostles. There is nothing like that to indicate God's angry displeasure with the early Christians. Not one sign from heaven.

Ahhh.. I see. You are looking for some sign from heaven that it occurred -- and a dramatic one. There were signs of the apostasy in the Christian Church, most definitely, but I can see how you would miss it, especially by misunderstanding Israel's apostasy.

If you had a correct grasp of when apostasy had occurred in Israel and in other times, you might have a different view. I can offer a different perspective, but I think some fundamental things would have to be different for you to be open to it. In particular, you would have to recognize that Israel's apostasy was in stages and completed well before the time of Christ. Jesus came to apostate Israel.

I can be more comprehensive if need be about Old Testament Israelite horrors or assurances of a continuous Levitical Priesthood if necessary. Hopefully that is not necessary now.

I think we are talking past each other. That individuals functioned in a hierarchy of priesthood, does not change that the priesthood was apostate. The appearance of Godliness does not mean that there is no apostasy.

Happy Fourth of July. I am working today also.

Edited July 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I'm just describing what Clement, Ignatius, et al described. There's no redefinition here. You can read it for yourself. It's quite obvious, except for those with an agenda.

Yes, there is redefinition. You are claiming that individuals who were members of the True Church are Catholic because the Catholic Church later took some of the True Church's teachings. By that measure, you are redefining Catholicism and in the terms you established Mormons are Catholic. Yet the Catholic Church rejects your theory.

[Spammer]

Yes, there is redefinition. You are claiming that individuals who were members of the True Church are Catholic because the Catholic Church later took some of the True Church's teachings. By that measure, you are redefining Catholicism and in the terms you established Mormons are Catholic. Yet the Catholic Church rejects your theory.

So you're saying that the True Church's eucharistic service is liturgical, celebrated by a bishop or priest on an altar, and centered around an offering of bread and wine believed to transformed into the body and blood of the Lord? Does your bishop know this is your belief? You sound like a Catholic.

[CASteinman]

So you're saying that the True Church's eucharistic service is liturgical, celebrated by a bishop or priest on an altar, and centered around an offering of bread and wine believed to transformed into the body and blood of the Lord? Does your bishop know this is your belief? You sound like a Catholic.

As I told you, your redefinition of things will bring in other non-Catholic Churches. However, you have introduced a new component: Transubstantiation.

If you keep moving the goal posts you will eventually manage to exclude Mormons as well as 1st Century Christians.

I am aware, however, that by the Second Century, the symbolism taught by Christ became increasingly misconstrued. But this is not attested to in the 1st Century and during the age of the Apostles.

Edited July 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[Spammer]

As I told you, your redefinition of things will bring in other non-Catholic Churches. However, you have introduced a new component: Transubstantiation.

If you keep moving the goal posts you will eventually manage to exclude Mormons as well as 1st Century Christians.

My definitions are provided by the Apostolic Fathers themselves. There is, therefore, no goal-post moving. My viewpoint is grounded in the clear words of those bishops themselves. Yours is grounded in your testimony. The tranformation of Christ's body and blood and Transubstantiation are not the same thing, though Aquinas's elaboration of the latter followed from the former. Both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in the transformed body and blood of Christ; only Catholics believe in Transubstantiation.

[CASteinman]

My definitions are provided by the Apostolic Fathers themselves.

No, that is not true.

[Ron Beron]

We don't beleive it is the Levitical priesthood that was going to lead the church. It may have some supporting responsibilities, but it would not be at the head of the church.

Good call. Robert Eisenman believes that James, a Zadokite (Melchizedek) had this new authority.

[Ron Beron]

I think you will likely find that is an argument for "what is acceptable evidence" rather than an argument of actual evidence.

I am an EV, rather than Catholic but felt the need to respond. On what basis is your belief that these claims of yours are indicative of the entire Church going into apostasy?

Apostasia, a falling away, is an extreme word, but apropos. Actually, the church evolved from a provincial movement led by Jesus to a wider world movement guided not by Jewish ideals, but Hellenistic concepts such as Neoplatonism. Along the way what was the essential Christianity begun by Jesus was marginalized by the larger movement. Will Durant stated, "As Christianity changed the world, so the world changed Christianity".

[TAO]

I really prefer not to critique others, but if I were to point to things (not to any specific church, but to how Christianity has involved in general) it would be these:

-Christianity de-emphasized the physical aspects of God.

-Many Christians would rather trust the Bible than the Holy Ghost.

Again, those are my small opinions, that I hope to keep rather quiet.

Edited July 4, 2012 by TAO

[CASteinman]

The tranformation of Christ's body and blood and Transubstantiation are not the same thing... Both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in the transformed body and blood of Christ; only Catholics believe in Transubstantiation.

This is bogus.

[Calm]

This is bogus.

I know an EO who is at this very moment (well, the past few days, don't know if he is thinking about it right now) arguing for transubstantiation (using the specific term in the correct way) so I would assume that he believes in it.

[CASteinman]

I know an EO who is at this very moment (well, the past few days, don't know if he is thinking about it right now) arguing for transubstantiation (using the specific term in the correct way) so I would assume that he believes in it.

There is also no substantive difference between transformation and transubstantiation. In addition, the only reason that the Greeks don't "believe" in transubstantiation is because they use a greek word (Instead of latin) for the same thing.

[3DOP]

It would have been in the 1830's. No later than 1837 in the case of England and not long after in the case of Continental Europe.

I completely agree and never considered that to be part of the issue.

Jesus appears to have been a pretty observant Jew under the Law. And had respect for the institutions established by Himself in the Old Testament. This is a separate issue from whether there had been an apostasy. I get your view -- but I feel like we are looking at things from two different perspectives entirely. My perspective, for example, includes that notion that apostasy can occur even if outward displays are similar to the True Church.

I should clarify what I meant by "pretty much total", because this seems to me to be what you would consider to be a narrow passage by which the True Church would persist.

That was not what I meant. What I meant was that it is possible for there to be a general apostasy that applies so generally that the True Church (or whatever you want to call the organization) is gone and yet there may persist individuals here and there who have the authority of God, either by stubbornness or by angelic ministration, but who are not authorized to offer the ordinances of the Gospel to others, generally and there is no grand Church organization associated with that authority left to persist into the future. In essence these are one-off instances that may exist according to some hidden wisdom in the Lord or as remnants of the True Church (even still officiating as such) that have not died off yet. A few examples of such people you may be familiar with would be Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius -- all Bishops, but without authority from God to designate new Bishops or to lead the Church.

It may persist off the earth, I suppose. But on the earth it was lost as far as I can tell.

We definitely do not see things the same and I notice that you cite instances that are not described as related to any sort of apostasy. I am well aware that it is a traditional view that the rendering of the veil in the Temple signified the Jews were in apostasy. But I do not believe that was exactly the intent. The same thing could have happened even if Israel was not in apostasy. In my view.

I do not understand why you say that.

Ahhh.. I see. You are looking for some sign from heaven that it occurred -- and a dramatic one. There were signs of the apostasy in the Christian Church, most definitely, but I can see how you would miss it, especially by misunderstanding Israel's apostasy.

If you had a correct grasp of when apostasy had occurred in Israel and in other times, you might have a different view. I can offer a different perspective, but I think some fundamental things would have to be different for you to be open to it. In particular, you would have to recognize that Israel's apostasy was in stages and completed well before the time of Christ. Jesus came to apostate Israel.

I think we are talking past each other. That individuals functioned in a hierarchy of priesthood, does not change that the priesthood was apostate. The appearance of Godliness does not mean that there is no apostasy.

Happy Fourth of July. I am working today also.

Hey again Steinman. Thanks for your reply.

We just disagree. I didn't realize that Mormons take this position about the Levites. I think the Levitical priesthood was still fully active in the times of Christ, until He was crucified. I admit that I am surprised that you would take such a position when the Holy Family observed all of the Mosaic rituals and Jesus Himself did too, right down to the Last Passover. How am I to understand that it was an apostate priesthood, when after being healed of their leprosy, Jesus sends former lepers to the priests for examination as prescribed in the Pentateuch? Do you see my difficulty? It seems rash to dismiss the idea that these were priests as true and real as Aaron and his boys.

This is for you but I would love to get other LDS replies too. How do Mormons explain why Jesus and His Family give the appearance of belief in a priesthood that had lost all of its authority? What does Jesus mean when He says of the scribes and Pharisees, that they "sit in Moses' seat"? Obviously they were hypocrites, but He tells his disciples to obey their words but don't copy their behaviors in Mt. 23. Why do Mormons think the disciples were supposed to follow priestly instruction, if it had no authority?

The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do:

Mt 23: 2b and 3a

You suggest that there is an appearance of Godliness without the power. That doesn't seem helpful to me. They were exposed as hypocrites! There is no appearance of godliness. I wouldn't have much reason to think there was any true religion going on except for the fact that Jesus Christ observed all of their ordinances to the day of his death. It seems to me like if anything, there is an appearance of ungodliness with the power.

3DOP

[Spammer]

There is also no substantive difference between transformation and transubstantiation. In addition, the only reason that the Greeks don't "believe" in transubstantiation is because they use a greek word (Instead of latin) for the same thing.

The difference is in the explanation provided. You seem to be unaware of the fundamental distinction between Latin theologizing and Greek theologizing. The Greek EO tradition accepts the fact of the transformation without providing a formal description of the process (the same as Justin, Ignatius, and Clement). The Latins, following Aquinas, developed a theory grounded in Aristotle's metaphysics to explain the process. Contra your assertion, the Apostolic Fathers were not aware of the dogma of transubstantiation, as it would not be developed for another 1000 years. They did believe in transformation. They were not Mormons. This is indisputable.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I know an EO who is at this very moment (well, the past few days, don't know if he is thinking about it right now) arguing for transubstantiation (using the specific term in the correct way) so I would assume that he believes in it.

Many EO do, though transubstantiation is a dogma only in the Latin Rite. The Greek fathers opted to leave the nature of the transformation unexplained.

[Spammer]

No, that is not true.

Yes, true. The Apostolic Fathers in their writings very clearly described liturgical and eucharistic worship as the hallmark of the True Church. Your desperate desire to cast them in a Mormon light has no basis in the texts themselves.

[Spammer]

I am aware, however, that by the Second Century, the symbolism taught by Christ became increasingly misconstrued. But this is not attested to in the 1st Century and during the age of the Apostles.

Agreed. However, it is attested to in early 2nd Century (110 CE) by Ignatius, who was clearly a believer in 'transformation'. Ignatius was born into the church and was a disciple of John the Beloved. He was friends and in communion with Polycarp and was in communion with the church of Rome, which was helmed by Clement twenty years prior. Belief in a literal transformation of the bread and wine obviously originated in the 1st Century. Ignatius did not invent it in 110 CE. Since he was John's disciple, maybe it came directly from John himself. Either that or Ignatius was an apostate.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Spammer

[Flyonthewall]

Hey again Steinman. Thanks for your reply.

We just disagree. I didn't realize that Mormons take this position about the Levites. I think the Levitical priesthood was still fully active in the times of Christ, until He was crucified. I admit that I am surprised that you would take such a position when the Holy Family observed all of the Mosaic rituals and Jesus Himself did too, right down to the Last Passover. How am I to understand that it was an apostate priesthood, when after being healed of their leprosy, Jesus sends former lepers to the priests for examination as prescribed in the Pentateuch? Do you see my difficulty? It seems rash to dismiss the idea that these were priests as true and real as Aaron and his boys.

This is for you but I would love to get other LDS replies too. How do Mormons explain why Jesus and His Family give the appearance of belief in a priesthood that had lost all of its authority? What does Jesus mean when He says of the scribes and Pharisees, that they "sit in Moses' seat"? Obviously they were hypocrites, but He tells his disciples to obey their words but don't copy their behaviors in Mt. 23. Why do Mormons think the disciples were supposed to follow priestly instruction, if it had no authority?

Mt 23: 2b and 3a

You suggest that there is an appearance of Godliness without the power. That doesn't seem helpful to me. They were exposed as hypocrites! There is no appearance of godliness. I wouldn't have much reason to think there was any true religion going on except for the fact that Jesus Christ observed all of their ordinances to the day of his death. It seems to me like if anything, there is an appearance of ungodliness with the power.

3DOP

This is what Matthew 23 says in the KJV:

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The ^ascribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ ^bseat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

To me, it seems like what is being said is...the scribes and Pharisees sit in the judges seat of the Mosaic law, therefore, observe the law, but do not follow their example. Their priesthood may be invalid, but the law is still valid.

[Ron Beron]

Yes, as I recall, it is.

John's father was a Levite who officiated in the temple. His ordination was hereditary.

[ANACO]

John's father was a Levite who officiated in the temple. His ordination was hereditary.

His ordination was based on his righteousness.