Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[3DOP]

I was considering making comment on some lengthy texts from St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. But it occurs to me that it is probable that Latter-day Saints will agree with my exegesis, while diminishing the authority of the text for an arguably plausible reason. In this chapter, St. Paul makes a distinction regarding those things found herein which are by "commandment of the Lord" and those which are of the Apostle's personal counsel. I may advance a few reasons why Catholics accept St. Paul's personal counsel in this document with equal authority. But for sake of argument, I will begin by analyzing the text according to the worst possible condition for the Catholic, as though we may safely dismiss all of "St. Paul's counsel" as being entirely mistaken:

1 Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

---I Cor. 7:1-9

Of course, I will argue energetically that the Apostle is certainly teaching the advantages of remaining unmarried if anyone somehow mistakenly interprets this or the passage that follows after a different manner. Taken together with the passages from the Old Testament as well as the Gospel which give evidence that a new dispensation of God's will has been revealed, Catholics (and Orthodox) have a threefold biblical witness in favor of the idea that for most, described appropriately as those who "do not contain themselves", marriage has been instituted and blessed by God, for indeed "it is better to marry than to be burnt." (either with lust or worse). But for others, we see as in Mt. 19, "It is good for a man not touch a woman," but again, "every one hath his proper gift from God." Rather than argue that St. Paul is against perpetual celibacy, I think the Latter-day Saint should lay the greatest weight upon verse 6: "I speak this...not by commandment."

25 Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. 26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity: that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. 28 But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. 29 This therefore I say, brethren: The time is short. It remaineth, that they also who have wives be as if they had none: 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not: and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not: and they that buy as if they possessed not: 31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not. For the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. 36 But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will. He sinneth not if she marry. 37 For he that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. 38 Therefore both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better. 39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. 40 But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I also have the spirit of God.

---I Cor. 7:25-40

With an interlude between verses ten and twenty-five begin another section where St. Paul gives a kind of disclaimer. Once again, it seems expedient for the LDS position to diminish the authority of this passage for once again, it appears impossible to me to interpret this passage any other way than that St. Paul is advocating not only that those who are unmarried remain so, but also alludes to a truth which is repeated twice in the Gospels, that marriage is for this life only in verse 29: "The time is short...they also who have wives be as though they had none." In the Gospels, the Lord Jesus is questioned by the Sadducees, unbelievers in the resurrection, regarding the heavenly marital status of an hypothetical woman who married more than one brother. They wonder which brother will be her husband. But Jesus surprises them by informing them that marriage is for this life only:

For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven...For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.

---Mt. 22:30, Mk. 12:25

Catholics take the position that St. Paul's counsel, being compatible with other revelations in both Testaments, is to be taken as given to us by the Holy Ghost. That he was modest enough to admit that the theology he is developing is taking God's Word a further step, does not give us the liberty to disregard it according to our view.

But let us suppose these sections from I Corinthians SHOULD be disregarded. It has been alleged that the practice and advocation of celibacy for both men and women who "hath his proper gift from God", is an evident sign of apostasy. I think those of you who follow my posts regularly, know that I use strong language sparingly. I think you will search a lot of posts before you will find me saying what I am about to say regarding the allegation of apostasy because of celibacy, as practiced and advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. The practice of perpetual celibacy as evidence for apostasy is preposterous.

I admit the plausibility of disregarding much of St. Paul's seventh chapter. But when we Catholics have only codified the clear teaching of an Apostle of Christ, mistaken though you might say he was, it cannot be evidence of apostasy. If Restorationists would insist upon describing such an error as evidence of apostasy, they are doing so at great expense. It seems to me that the difficulties of accusing Catholics of apostasy while exonerating an Apostle whose counsel we follow would do incalculable damage to LDS claims. Why is it okay for the Apostle Paul to believe and advocate his own counsel, but when we follow him, we are apostate? See what I mean? I think you would end up losing the Apostle Paul. Maybe a handful of you are ready for that. I think it would be disastrous for Mormons.

If I were LDS, I would back away as fast as I could from the allegation that perpetual celibacy must be understood as a sign of apostasy in the early church.

3DOP

Edited August 19, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Finally, I need to address the concerns expressed by mfbukowski regarding the Catholic position, as quoted from St. John of Damascus which affirmed that marriage was honorable but that perpetual celibacy was even more so:

bukowski

The problem with this however as an ethical statement is that if everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist.

3DOP

No worries there mate. We know that it is only for a few. And for the many, we don't even allow artificial birth control!

bukowski

I believe in a morality which applies to everyone everywhere. In my opinion, mores should be universal; your moms were right when they asked you as a child "What if everyone did that?". I think that such any other approach makes no sense.

3DOP

I don't recall mom saying that. But when applied to picking a grape without paying for it in the produce department, it shows great wisdom. But this isn't about choosing between good and evil but between two great goods. Jesus says that it is for the few.

bukowski

Even as a Catholic, I could not defend such an ethic this way. I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

3DOP

What ethic? Nobody is considered a second class citizen because they are married. Priests and religious could never look down on us either. They all have Moms and Dads. They are the product of marriage. We once had a parish priest, in fact he is the one under whom my son decided to discern if he was called to such a life. This good priest is also a good son who calls his Mom everyday, and usually more than once! Good priests are the product of good families and they know that the family and marriage is the institution through which God wills that our priests and religious are nurtured. Thanks be to God for our good priests who love us and care for us foregoing the joys that we are permitted.

It was God's will that Jesus Himself was born into a family unit composed of mother and father. There is no unequal ethic going on. We who experience the good joys of married family life just love our priests. Because we are grateful for their unequalled sacrifice on our behalf, we say that as a state of life, as a vocation, perpetual virginity is more honorable than the married state. Individually, that does not mean that they are holier or will all occupy higher places in heaven.

bukowski

That to me makes sense- it is like the LDS idea of fasting, but extended in one area for a lifetime.

3DOP

Here my friend is alluding to the priestly life of celibacy as "a special covenant...and as a voluntary gift." That is precisely what it is! There is no Catholic ethic or more which violates anyone's freedom in this matter. Further, none of the revelations to which we point in favor of celibacy approach the subject from a view that would diminish marriage, or to "cast a snare", as St. Paul says to those who are called to a married vocation. No one needs ever feel reproach or guilt for following either calling. My own son, as I mentioned above is in a period of discernment. I pray that it is God's will that he be a priest, mainly because we need priests, but even more, I pray God's will may be clearly known to him. And if he should conclude that it is not for him, he will return without anyone's disrespect.

bukowski

But to see virginity as a "higher" calling, if made universal, would extinguish the human race.

3DOP

Correct. The Albigensian heresy proposed the doctrine of devils, "forbidding to marry..." (I Tim. 4:3). They universalized that which was meant for the few. But simply because the Albigensians overemphasized the true doctrine, is no reason to abolish perpetual celibacy as a voluntary act of sacrifice, which is the essence of priestly activity. The Albigensians turned out to be rather zealous. Things got political, which is to say they became violent and one of the Crusades was eventually directed at the suppression of such a pernicious doctrine.

bukowski

The implication is that we are not equal before the Lord. There are those who are called to be more Godly and the others of us to be less so. Yet those called to be "less" indeed are indispensable to those who are called to be "higher" or those who are virgins would not even have been born.

3DOP

We are nothing if not unequal. In every way. Our natural gifts and talents are unique to ourselves as is the environment into which we are born. Only God could know how to correctly judge the degrees of merit or chastisement we deserve. If on top of that, we posit that certain positions in the Body of Christ are more honourable than others it is not remarkable. In I Corinthians 12, St. Paul is explaining why God has given us such an inequality of gifts and callings:

For the body also is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body? But now there are many members indeed, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour, That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.

---I Cor. 12:14-25

According to this understanding, the Body of Christ is indeed composed of unequal parts. Equality in the members works, gifts, and honour would make a true Body, a spiritual organism, as desired by God impossible: "But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body?" (v. 18, 19) The Apostle wrote this chapter to admonish his readers to avoid the kind of egalitarian thinking which you seem to be advocating bukowski.

bukowski

I see it ultimately as making the virgin class into a parasitic minority dependent on the others for their very existence.

3DOP

A parasite no. Not ultimately. Not ever. A parasite offers no benefit to its host. But yes, there exists a mutuality of dependence whereby those of us with an excess of material gifts, are more than compensated by those who can favor us by virtue of their spiritual gifts. And as a class if you insist on such an expression, be assured that there is neither conflict, nor any ability for the "class" to perpetuate itself, except for the free good will of the majority.

Nobody prays to have more parasites! But we Catholics pray for more priests! And sometimes, thank God, we get to rejoice when a family member is so privileged to join priestly or religious ranks.

bukowski

I don't mean to be offensive- I am attacking the argument of celibacy being a higher calling, not the covenant of celibacy itself. If someone feels they want to be celibate, that is their decision and I have no problem with it.

3DOP

Fair enough bukowski. You know I am not offended in the least, don't you? I thank you again for your generous acceptance of celibacy as a free and even life-long covenant. I hope I have persuaded you that what you described as acceptable to you, is pretty much what it is. But with regards to your concerns about inequality and class difficulties, I disagree strongly. As Catholics view and practice the vocation to celibacy, your concerns are not necessary.

Catholics take a middle view to the question of married life. We have Mormons and many Protestants on the one hand, who continue to advocate the goodness of family life and the value of marriage much as it was understood before the times of Christ. I remember the pressure to get married before I left Baptist Bible College. I am glad I did, but it reflected an aversion to celibacy and an unbalanced emphasis on married life as an almost exclusive way to live. We have usually had Albigensians, or those like them on the other hand, who advocate the goodness of an aesthetic life of sacrifice on the other. (I think the last Shaker died recently. Yes, bukowski, universality isn't a good idea). We agree with both Albigensian and Mormon. Catholics teach that families must be perpetuated by honorable and Sacramental Marriage while acknowledging the superiority, however slight, of a priestly life of self-sacrifice and perpetual virginity. In this matter we happily enjoy "having our cake and eating it as well". We take and accept the best of what both our opponents in this subject teach.

See y'all later.

3DOP

Edited August 19, 2012 by 3DOP

[Alan]

3DOP,

Just for the record, you are right - I am Mormon but not Salt Lake, or even Utah, or even the US. As my avatar indicates, I am British.

I think you should probably start that new thread about Catholic revelation. I can't think of any apart from the psuedo-prophets like Nostradamus or Mother Shipton. These were, perhaps, holy individuals who received personal revelation. I am talking about revelation and prophecy for the whole church and for the whole world. When God wanted the early church to take the gospel to the Gentiles he spoke to and through Peter the senior apostle and earthly leader of the church, and not some one else however holy they were. In other words, the Lord uses an orderly system and has done throughout history.

Therefore, according to this pattern he should be speaking to us through the Pope and all I am asking for is an example of this occuring in the last two or three hundred years.

Many thanks.

[3DOP]

3DOP,

Just for the record, you are right - I am Mormon but not Salt Lake, or even Utah, or even the US. As my avatar indicates, I am British.

I think you should probably start that new thread about Catholic revelation. I can't think of any apart from the psuedo-prophets like Nostradamus or Mother Shipton. These were, perhaps, holy individuals who received personal revelation. I am talking about revelation and prophecy for the whole church and for the whole world. When God wanted the early church to take the gospel to the Gentiles he spoke to and through Peter the senior apostle and earthly leader of the church, and not some one else however holy they were. In other words, the Lord uses an orderly system and has done throughout history.

Therefore, according to this pattern he should be speaking to us through the Pope and all I am asking for is an example of this occuring in the last two or three hundred years.

Many thanks.

I have never heard of Mother Shipton, nor paid any attention to Nostradamus.

As I said Alan, I think it would be self-serving to start a thread about post-apostolic revelation. As you see, there is barely any participation from LDS parties on THIS thread. I feel a little bit like I am already Mr. Monologue. If they are curious they will ask and I will answer. If you are curious, start a thread and I will answer as time permits and will exclude anything "revealed" by Nostradamus or Mother S.

As for St. Peter, I have to differ with your opinion that his New Testament leadership sets up any kind of pattern. I quoted a prophecy that came from the very mouth of St. Peter about how all people will prophesy in the new age, and so it is. In our canon, only two small books are attributed to St. Peter. That leaves 25 other New Testament books that break your pattern, assuming you agree with the Catholic canon of the New Testament.

[3DOP]

The next on the list of evidences for apostasy has to do with what what Yep describes as "The worship and elevation of Mary."

Today is the Feast of Our Lady's Nativity, and it seems like an opportune time to ask her help on how to explain the great things that God has done with her.

I think I would have to begin by way of protest. It seems to me that one of the surest signs of apostasy is "disregard for the Mother of God."

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me..

---Luke 1:45-49

Unfortunately for those who view the Protestant Reformation as a good thing, one of the side effects of it always seems to be a minimalization of the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the economy of salvation. The "Second Eve" as Our Lady was referred to by St. Irenaeus, reverses all the wrongs that were done by the first Eve. Like Eve, she was born sinless. Like Eve, the critical moment of her existence was when she was approached by an angel. Whereas Eve thought that by obeying the serpent, she would become a goddess, it appears that by obeying God's angel, Mary has become one. The Catholic Church has not elevated Mary. The Catholic Church has called her "blessed" for all generations because "He that is mighty hath done great things to me (her)..."

God elevates Mary. Jesus defers to His Blessed Mother even in this life. Making a feeble objection to His mother's request for wine, she knows He will do her bidding, telling the attendants at the wedding feast of Cana to "do whatever He tells you." (paraphrase) This is what our Lady has continued to do, since the moment when Jesus gave His own mother to be St. John's mother and our mother at Calvary. She is an advocate for us while admonishing us to do her Son's will.

I am weary of saying we don't worship Mary. There is a clear and unmistakable distinction between the worship we give to God and that which we give to His greatest creation, but to to non-Catholics, our veneration of Mary is a devotion that seems excessive. But I fear that it only seems so because non-Catholics are over eager to be distanced from any "taint" of adulation for Mary. The Scriptures, sparing as they are in relation to Mary, give clear evidence of her excellent qualities, and so to us Catholics, it seems like the non-Catholics diminish her...to excess. Forget about Catholics when you are pondering the life and role of the Mother of Jesus. What kind of person would the Father choose to be the mother of His only-begotten Son? The angel said that she was "full of grace". Does this strike you as in any way remarkable?

Oh how can we fail to see that if there were two Adams, there were also two Eves? In the story of the Fall, is there not an important role for a woman? Is it so inappropriate that a woman should figure prominently in our redemption? But Mormons believe in human exaltation. You believe in deification. If Protestants are scandalized that we think Mary has been exalted in heaven, why should you be?

I have referred at other times to The Liturgical Year. It is a series of books that provides commentary on the seasons and days of the church calendar comprising sixteen volumes. I received it for a Christmas present last year. A precious gift. In today's reading for the feast, there is a beautiful passage that contrasts the Garden of Eden with the new paradise that is commemorated on this day when we remember the birth of Blessed Mary:

Hail, new world, far surpassing in magnificence the first creation! Hail blessed haven, where we find a calm after so many storms! Aurora dawns; the rainbow glitters in the heavens; the dove comes forth; the ark rests upon the earth, offering new destinies to the world. The haven, the aurora, the rainbow, the dove, the ark of salvation, the paradise of the heavenly Adam, the creation whereof the former was but a shadow: all this art thou, sweet infant, in whom dwell already all grace, all truth, all life.

---The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranges, republished by St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, vol. 14, p. 146, 147

Our Lady's life is a little hidden in the New Testament. It is even more hidden in the Old. But it is there for the Church to discover...for those who "hear the word of God and keep it." Beginning with the Garden of Eden, our Lady is symbolized in figurative shadow from Moses to the Maccabees. I love her. I do. She is beautiful. She is His mother and my mother. O Mary my queen, my mother, remember I am thine own, keep me, guard me as they property and possession. I am a little boy with her. I run to her daily, and as at Cana, she tells me "Do whatever He says". Somehow it seems easier to obey when hearing it from my good mother.

On the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,

3DOP

Edited September 8, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

"Blessed art thou among women..." is the declaration of angels and men at the recognition of the wonderful status of her chosen to be Mother of God. Mary herself affirms that "all generations shall call me blessed". Why? "Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me."

It seems like we sometimes fail to appreciate the significance of Mary's humble reception of the angel's message. As St. Joseph responds with alacrity to dreams by night our Lady receives Gabriel's surprising message with wonder, but also with a credulous question, and lastly with speedy obedience. It is with no less speed that she hastens to her cousin upon the happy news of her being with child. At this time she is met by Elizabeth with a similar greeting as that carried by the angel, but with a necessary addendum! "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!" For Mary is now Theotokos, God-bearer. "And whence is this that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" asks Elizabeth. Elizabeth immediately recognizes the unique graces of "the mother of my Lord".

To grasp the full reality of the scenes that are presented with such beauty in Luke 1, we cannot fail to return to the beginning of Redemption history, when there was another such woman, innocent before God, who carries the fate of the human race in her hands. At a later time, I hope to develop the theme "Blessed art thou among women..." as it relates to women who resemble the first and second Eves as they are depicted in Genesis 3, and throughout the Holy Scriptures. I hope it can shed some light upon a subject that seems to trouble non-Catholics who are not familiar with the concept of Mary as Second Eve, or how she is vividly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

3DOP

Edited September 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[Bart Burk]

...and I would answer with this primer,

The Continuity of the Catholic Church

ETA: Rev 13:7? huh? It says nothing of apostasy. It describes the state of Christians at the time, during the reign of Domitian.

Thank you for posting this.

[3DOP]

The first of the seven sorrows of Mary occurs on the occasion of the prophecy of Holy Simeon when the Holy Family made their visit for the Presentation in the Temple. as an aside, but a most meaningful one, after having praised God for allowing him to see the Messiah, Simeon pronounces to Mary, "And thy own soul a sword shall pierce..."

There is no question that the Catholic Church has exalted Mary. But it is it unseemly? Does it detract from the glory belonging to God alone?

"Neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption will give us a higher idea of Mary's exaltation than the title of co-redemptress. Her dolours were not necessary for the redemption of the world, but in the counsels of God they were inseparable from it. They belong to the integrity of the divine plan."

---The Liturgical Year, Dom Gueranges, vol. 14, p. 212

The first and most important point is that Catholics know that Mary's participation in Christ's sufferings are in a sense superfluous. But can we not say that about all of our sufferings? It seems important to the theology of suffering that God has chosen for His own good reasons that not only Mary, but that all who would be His children should be active participants in the salvation of souls, precisely to the degree that we also are willing to bear the cross of suffering. Simeon announced Mary's unique suffering and without believing it to be absolutely necessary to minimal requirements of our salvation, we are pleased to accept the role that God has assigned to woman in both the Fall and Redemption of our race.

Not surprisingly, the Old Testament reading for the Feast of the Seven Dolours is taken from a type who foreshadows Jesus' Mother. The words used of blessed Judith are reminiscent of the same words used by the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth to our Blessed Mother:

The Lord hath blessed thee by his power, because by thee he hath brought our enemies to nought. Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God above all women upon the earth. Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and, because he hath so magnified thy name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men, who shall be mindful of the power of the Lord for ever...

---Judith 13: 23, 25

As God chose a woman to save Israel from destruction, so God chose a woman to save the souls of men. The idea that such a woman should be honored in the ways that Mary has been, was not original with the Catholic Church, but springs from the very counsels of God "because he hath so magnified thy name this day"! We are convinced beyond all doubt that it is God's good pleasure that we should honor Jesus' Mother and our mother, even in the person of Blessed Judith who so vividly uncrowned the type of Satan himself, the wicked King Holofernes. And this will not be the last time that we see such holy women destroy types of the antichrist, giving the devout Mary full consciousness of the pregnant meaning of Elizabeth's prophetic words to her, "Blessed art thou among women..."

More to follow...

3DOP