Church Promoted a False "Great Apostasy" Narrative according to Maxwell Institute

[Saint Bonaventure]

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Don't Catholics claim the apostolic line of succession is unbroken, and Peter came to Rome, and all that?

Most definitely, yes. My understanding is that Latter-day Saints believe that Peter gave his keys to Joseph Smith, and that LDS have a succession process going from that. Catholics believe that Peter and the other apostles have passed on their authority to the bishops, and that that chain of succession is unbroken. Both groups are clear about Peter having the keys.

I'm learning more about the LDS perspective and am appreciative of those who have patiently explained a few things to me. 

From a Catholic perspective, quotes like this one from St. Clement of Rome in the late 1st century are vital:

Quote

 

 1 THE Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God.  2 The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God’s will.  3 Having therefore received their commands, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with faith confirmed by the word of God, they went forth in the assurance of the Holy Spirit preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming.  4 They preached from district to district, and from city to city, and they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of the future believers.  5 And this was no new method, for many years before had bishops and deacons been written of; for the scripture says thus in one place “I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 79–81.

 

And from St. Ignatius of Antioch in the very early 2nd century:

Quote

 

 1 SEE that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles. And reverence the deacons as the command of God. Let no one do any of the things appertaining to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.  2 Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptise or to hold an “agapé” without the bishop; but whatever he approve, this is also pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid.

Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 261.

 

And from St. Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century. He's refuting the Gnostics:

Quote

 

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.

 

What I think we have here is a difference in authority claims, and also different understandings of how God works in history. Catholics (and Orthodox, and basically, Anglicans) see themselves as part of a continuity that goes back to the ekklesia at Sinai, and that while there have always been apostasies from the Church, there hasn't been a total apostasy by the Church. I believe that LDS see a pattern of apostasy and restoration, with authority departing during total apostasy and then returning with a restoration. I'm not quite sure how the LDS approach fits with the Book of Mormon, as I believe the Book of Mormon describes people having authority into the 5th century A.D. I'm very willing to be set straight on all of this.

[Eschaton]

16 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Don't Catholics claim the apostolic line of succession is unbroken, and Peter came to Rome, and all that?

Yes, but that's largely based on later tradition and doesn't really hold up historically. 

From Bart Ehrman:

https://ehrmanblog.org/who-was-the-first-bishop-of-rome/

Quote

According to the second-century Irenaeus, it was a man named Linus, who was appointed to the office by Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3, 3, 3). In one place the father of church history, Eusebius, appears to agree with this, to some extent, when he says that “the first to be called bishop after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul was Linus” (Church History, 3, 2); but here Linus is appointed not by Peter, but by someone else, after Peter’s death. And to confuse things even further, just a few paragraphs later Eusebius phrases the matter differently, saying that “Linus … was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome….” This makes it appear that Peter was the first bishop, Linus the second, and Clement the third. And the tradition becomes yet more confused when we consider the writings of Tertullian from the early third century, who seems to indicate that Clement was not the third bishop of Rome, but the first – appointed by Peter himself (Prescription of the Heretics 32). How is one to resolve this confusion? It is worth pointing out that when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he gives no indication that there is any single leader of the church there, just as there were not single bishops over any of the churches that Paul addressed in his letters in the 50s CE. More telling still, some sixty years after Paul we have another letter written to the church in Rome, this time by the soon-to-be-martyred Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, who has been sent under armed guard to face the wild beasts in the Roman forum. Even though Ignatius presupposes that there are single bishops in each of the other six letters that he writes (for example, to the Ephesians and the Smyrneans), when he writes to Rome he does not presume this at all, but instead speaks to the entire congregation, never mentioning any one person in charge of the church. Somewhat before Ignatius’s time, and soon thereafter, we have two writings from Christians who actually resided in Rome. Both attest to a situation in which the Roman church was not under the leadership of a single individual, the bishop. The book of 1 Clement was written some time in the mid 90s CE. This is some thirty years after Peter’s death, which the author knows about and mentions (1 Clement 5:4). The letter was allegedly written by that very Clement that later tradition was to call the Roman bishop. Yet it seems to assume that the churches at that time were run not by individual leaders, but by a board of presbyters. The letter, in fact, is addressed to a situation in Corinth in which the presbyters had been ousted from office in some kind of church coup. The Roman Christians (not a “bishop”) write to try to redress the situation by having the older presbyters reinstated in office.

There were many competing Christian communities in the first century - none of them could really be called "The Catholic Church"

Edited January 26 by Eschaton

[InCognitus]

The article says:

Quote

“Early Protestant reformers then adopted this notion in their critique of the Catholic Church — they argued that the church had fallen into darkness, that there was this ‘Great Apostasy.’”

But Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, never used that term. (Some point to a later Latter-day Saint general authority, B.H. Roberts, as the one who first promoted the apostasy narrative.)

I'm not sure I know the difference between saying that there was a "Great Apostasy" (which is what I think the article means by the "term" that Joseph Smith never used) and a wide spread apostasy from the new covenant and some of the teachings.  

Joseph wrote about the apostasy several times, but he always described it as an apostasy from something (i.e. "from the true and living faith", or "from the apostolic platform" established by Christ).

For example, the 1832 Joseph Smith History:  

Quote

[T]hus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God

And in this Letter of Joseph Smith to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833:

Quote

Thus after this chosen family [Israel] had rejected Christ and his proposals the heralds of salvation said to them, "lo we turn unto the Gentiles," and the Gentiles received the covenant and were grafted in from whence the chosen family were broken off.  But the Gentiles have not continued in the goodness of God, but have departed from the faith that was once delivered to the saints and have broken the covenant in which their fathers were established (see Isaiah 24:5), and have become high minded and have not feared.  Therefore, but few of them will be gathered with the chosen family.  Has not the pride high-mindedness and unbelief of the Gentiles provoked the holy one of Israel to withdraw his Holy Spirit from them and send forth his judgements to scourge them from the wickedness; this is certainly the case.  

Christ said to His disciples (Mark 16:17 and 18), that these signs should follow them that believe:—“In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover;” and also, in connection with this, read 1st Corinthians, 12th chapter. By the foregoing testimonies we may look at the Christian world and see the apostasy there has been from the apostolic platform; and who can look at this and not exclaim, in the language of Isaiah, “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant?”  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 15, from Letter to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833)

Here, Joseph talks of the Holy Spirit being withdrawn from among the Gentiles (as a people) because of attitudes of pride, high-mindedness, and unbelief.  But this is also said in contrast to "Israel" as a people, rejecting the covenant because of similar attitudes.  And this is obviously speaking of the people groups collectively, and not individually, because in the Old Testament we see God passing similar judgements upon Israel as a people group, but not necessarily on some individuals within that people group.  Ancient Israel went through periods of apostasy even though they had prophets come among them led by the spirit of God.  So it would be wrong to think that the same thing happened during the so called "Great Apostasy" with the Gentiles.

In connection with this, I don't remember ever being taught that God "withdrew from the world at that time and remained distant" (as the OP article said), or that God's spirit withdrew completely from the earth.  The Book of Mormon's description of the period of apostasy (in 1 Nephi 13) is that it was a time of "captivity", where the designs of some men were to "bind" and "yoke" the people, which I see that as a means of preventing them from acting on the Spirit of God that was undoubtedly among some of them.  In fact, the same chapter describes the Spirit of God influencing some individuals in that period of history.

Revelation chapter 12 describes the "woman" (the church) fleeing into the "wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there" (verse 6), or that she is given "two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time" (verse 14).  And the description of the parable of the wheat and the tares in Doctrine and Covenants section 86 says that the "tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness".  Those verses don't describe the church being wiped completely off the earth, but instead it is secluded away for a time. 

And for the restoration of the church, the Doctrine and Covenants talks of the church coming back out of the wilderness (D&C 5:14, 33:5).  And the "true and living church" verse in section 1 seems to support this too:

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually"  (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30)

It's all been right in front of us this whole time. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:13 AM, Eschaton said:

Yes, but that's largely based on later tradition and doesn't really hold up historically. 

From Bart Ehrman:

https://ehrmanblog.org/who-was-the-first-bishop-of-rome/

There were many competing Christian communities in the first century - none of them could really be called "The Catholic Church"

I missed this when it was posted, and believe I have a little something to add to the conversation. 

The distinctive circumstances of early Christian churches, apostolic activities, and communities have been the subject of a wide variety of scholarship, and over quite a stretch of time. I'm only familiar with some of the literature in English, but people who really dive into this find works in Greek, Latin, French, German, some of the Indian dialects, and in many other languages. I don't doubt that the Chaldean Catholic Church has its own literature on this, and I suspect the Coptic Catholic Church does too. The Orthodox Churches, with their keen sense of history and traditions of scholarship, should have a wealth of scholarly thought on this topic.  

All of this is to say that treating the 'who was the first bishop of Rome' arguments or the 'none of the 1st century Christians called themselves the Catholic Church' assertions like they are a surprise, like they are a new shard of truth just dropped in a blog post, feels like a pull on the leg. It feels like a meme that Catholics and Protestants would drop on each other, with artwork by Gary Larson. I'm not saying that's the intention here, only that that kind of exploitation of scholarship is so very prevalent these days.

I'll add that I respect Bart Ehrman for the way he has mainstreamed critical, textual scholarship; he has made it possible for folks without an academic background to have a measure of understanding on a wide variety of subjects. He is not, though, the end-all, be-all, voice of authority on these subjects and, when he has time between book signings, would probably say as much. He doesn't seem like a fellow with a giant ego, but the Internet has a way of lionizing scholars out of proportion to their actual expertise. Scholars fill in the gaps with their own guesses, and there is an incredible congruity between a scholar's worldview and the guesses she or he makes as they fill in the gaps in the past. This is true of Ehrman and of anybody else. With regard to critical scholarship, it certainly isn't some superior, neutral, or disinterested arbiter of truth. It has its share of presuppositions. I'll add that I believe critical scholarship in Biblical studies is marginalized in some respects because it is massively disconnected from the people who actually take the Bible seriously in terms of how they live their lives.

Anyway, none of what I've written is probably news to you; I thought I'd share it just in case other interested readers come along. I'm currently reading the excellent Ancient Christians book by several scholars at BYU and also From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church by Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., who is an emeritus professor of theology from the Gregorian University in Rome. I don't think Sullivan has a blog.

Edited February 15 by Saint Bonaventure

[Buckeye]

It looks like a former prominent poster on this board - Blair Hodges - is doing a podcast series on the book. Based on prior work of his, this should be good. 
 

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/meet-the-early-day-saints-episode?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=737063&post_id=107093124&utm_medium=email#details

[Hamilton Porter]

I think the whole "Ancient Christians for Latter-day Saints" concept is dumb. If I wanted to know about ancient Christians, I go on Amazon and buy the best book about ancient Christianity (whatever that is). 

Why do I need "for Latter-day Saints"?

Edited March 13 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

On 1/23/2023 at 6:45 PM, CV75 said:

It does seem the "completely false" charge is as over the top as the idea that "God withdrew from the world." 

Exmos taking things out of context. Nah, imposibru.

Exactly what they do with the Bushman quote.

Edited March 13 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

On 1/23/2023 at 12:13 PM, Eschaton said:

And contrary to what we learned in the MTC, there was no original unified Christian church in the first century - it was highly diverse and segmented into different communities that believed different things, from the beginning

The reason most scholars believed that is because Biblical scholarship was heavily influenced by German Romanticism, where poets and authors wrote on behalf of their community. Hence the gospels were written by spokesmen of several imagined "communities."

Edited March 13 by Hamilton Porter

[InCognitus]

52 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I think the whole "Ancient Christians for Latter-day Saints" concept is dumb. If I wanted to know about ancient Christians, I go on Amazon and buy the best book about ancient Christianity (whatever that is). 

Why do I need "for Latter-day Saints"?

Have you even looked at the book?   Here's a link:  Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints 

Note the table of contents.  I notice a few items that have a specific aim toward Latter-day Saint interests:

Quote

Table of Contents

• Introduction: Understanding Ancient Christians, Apostasy, and Restoration (Jason R. Combs)
• Preaching Christ: Scripture, Sermons, and Practical Exegesis (Kristian S. Heal)
• Creating Canon: Authority, New Prophecy, and Sacred Texts (Thomas A. Wayment)
• Church Organization: Priesthood Offices and Women’s Leadership Roles (Ariel Bybee Laughton)
• Sacred Spaces and Places of Worship: From House Churches to Monumental Basilicas (Matthew J. Grey)
• Connecting with Christ: Rituals and Worship (Mark D. Ellison)
• Human Nature: Creation and the Fall (Gaye Strathearn)
• Divine Nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Jason R. Combs)
• Receiving Christ: Atonement, Grace, and Eternal Salvation (Cecilia M. Peek)
• Becoming Like God: Incarnation, Moral Formation, and Eternal Progression (Daniel Becerra)
• Inclining Christian Hearts: Work for the Dead (Catherine Gines Taylor)
• Living in the Afterlife: Heaven, Hell, and Places Between (D. Jill Kirby)
• Facing the End: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Millennium (Nicholas J. Frederick)
• Afterword: Medieval Christians (Miranda Wilcox)

And here's a sample page with a specific Latter-day Saint approach:

I also like to read other research on early Christianity.  But that doesn't mean a book on this topic aimed at Latter-day Saint interests doesn't have any value.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 2/15/2023 at 8:07 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

The Orthodox Churches, with their keen sense of history and traditions of scholarship, should have a wealth of scholarly thought on this topic.  

I'm reading an Orthodox commentary on Luke right now.

But the Orthodox church doesn't produce a lot of historical-critical Biblical scholarship.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Have you even looked at the book?   Here's a link:  Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints 

Note the table of contents.  I notice a few items that have a specific aim toward Latter-day Saint interests:

And here's a sample page with a specific Latter-day Saint approach:

I also like to read other research on early Christianity.  But that doesn't mean a book on this topic aimed at Latter-day Saint interests doesn't have any value.

You think there aren't any mainstream books on vicarious baptisms in early Christianity?

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

You think there aren't any mainstream books on vicarious baptisms in early Christianity?

I know there are, I have some of them. 

But that's just one of the topics of interest to Latter-day Saints in that book.

Edited March 13 by InCognitus

[Hamilton Porter]

Deification

https://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Deification-Patristic-Tradition-Christian/dp/0199205973/ref=sr_1_15?crid=2SN8X2RIK7TRP&keywords=deification&qid=1678736591&sprefix=deification%2Caps%2C105&sr=8-15

 

Edited March 13 by Hamilton Porter

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Deification

https://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Deification-Patristic-Tradition-Christian/dp/0199205973/ref=sr_1_15?crid=2SN8X2RIK7TRP&keywords=deification&qid=1678736591&sprefix=deification%2Caps%2C105&sr=8-15

 

I've got that one too.  Or these are good as well:

  

But this new book brings together in one book several topics of interest to Latter-day Saints (including the discussion on the apostasy). 

Edited March 13 by InCognitus

[Hamilton Porter]

I don't like it when academic pansies soften their rhetoric. If it's not "Great Apostasy" then what is it?

Should call it General Apostasy.

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I don't like it when academic pansies soften their rhetoric. If it's not "Great Apostasy" then what is it?

Should call it General Apostasy.

Softening rhetoric is clearly not your style.  

[carbon dioxide]

On 3/13/2023 at 2:26 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

I don't like it when academic pansies soften their rhetoric. If it's not "Great Apostasy" then what is it?

Should call it General Apostasy.

The Great falling away or the Great Collapse. 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Great falling away

What do you think "apostasy" in Greek means?

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/29/2023 at 4:09 PM, InCognitus said:

The article says:

Quote

“Early Protestant reformers then adopted this notion in their critique of the Catholic Church — they argued that the church had fallen into darkness, that there was this ‘Great Apostasy.’”

But Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, never used that term. (Some point to a later Latter-day Saint general authority, B.H. Roberts, as the one who first promoted the apostasy narrative.)

I'm not sure I know the difference between saying that there was a "Great Apostasy" (which is what I think the article means by the "term" that Joseph Smith never used) and a wide spread apostasy from the new covenant and some of the teachings.

Orson Pratt 1873…

Quote

There is, however, a declaration made by many religious people, that " God created all things out of nothing. " They even teach it in their Sunday schools; but they have never been able to prove any such thing. It is one of those ideas which have got into the minds of people through the teachings of uninspired men. The ancients -- those who lived many centuries before Christ, did not believe this doctrine; but since the days of Christ, and since the days of the great apostasy they have got up the idea that God made all things out of nothing, and they have incorporated it into their disciplines, catechisms, Sunday school books, and various works which they have published.

Wilford Woodruff 1860…

Quote

Those principles are plain; they can easily be comprehended when presented to the children of men as they are revealed from heaven. But, as plain and simple as they are, for eighteen hundred years the world was almost destitute of a knowledge of the truth and of the Holy Ghost which is poured out to lead mankind in the way of truth. From the time of the great falling away, which took place in the early part of the Christian era, up to the present time, the world have been ignorant with regard to the first principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Edited March 15 by Bernard Gui