A date for the "Great Apostasy"

  • Thread starter Thread starter batman1973
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with the apostasy issue is that as we know, understanding God’s love and fidelity and His fullness as God Who does not make mistakes, the Church started at Pentecost.

By 100 AD, our foundation was institutionalized, although Christianity was an underground or illegal gathering up to the time of Constantine.

The essence of why there was no apostasy…this mainly an individual turning one’s back from God, is that the Church is founded on Jesus Christ. The Church had practically all books of the Bible by the time I gave, the liturgy as we know it today in spirit, tone, and intent was intact throughout the entire Christian world by that same time, 100 AD, the ecclesial administation vs conciliar…group type, the Jewish model of the bishop was already in place, which the Mormons themselves have a similar role and title in their institution, and the profession of the Apostles Creed.

Not only that, but the bones of St. Peter and Paul have now been discovered and are undergoing dna scientific verification, that were placed under the appropriate altars of the same churches as named by the apostles in Rome.

We have so much archaelogical documentation as well as the directive in Scriptures … to ‘write it down’…that Mormonism will never be able to stand next to us, in spite of it going against its own tradition of having the angel moroni on top of its temples…to placing the cross on their new temple in the countryside of Rome. Is that correct???

The foundation of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. Our apostolic succession is proven, never broken. People cannot understand there is no perfection on this earth, and that we have had bad popes.

There is a Pope Honorious…spelling?..who was a pretty bad pope, morally speaking. Yet he taught infallibly because the Holy Spirit prevents the papacy from teaching error on faith and morals. Pope Honorious taught that Christ had 2 wills, one human and one divine, but He sought only to seek the will of His heavenly Father.
 
KathleenGee said:
Hi Jerusha,

As the anti-Catholic sources are now becoming academic and studying the early church fathers, again cherry picking as we have seen so many times on CAF, I asked my pastor for a good early church history book.

The one he recommended was the first book for seminarians, ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’, by Thomas Bokkenkotter. It is an overview and will not cover details that will redirect non-Catholics’ focus, if they are open.

I just came across a new history book and will review it with my pastoral team.
Click to expand...
It looks like a book to be very careful about reading. I have a link to some reviews by those who have read it

amazon.com/Concise-History-Catholic-Church-ebook/product-reviews/B000XU4U2G/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0
 
Actually, I have read Bokkenkotter and have it in my personal library. However, it has almost no discussion of the process of sorting through the various heresies, which is what I need for my current area of study. Mosheim discusses that in detail-- his own interpretation, of course, and it is probable that J.S. read it.

It appears from Mosheim that the **process ** of the alliance between church and state began with Constantine, and self-seeking members of the clergy took advantage of it. Of course, he exaggerates, given his perspective.

The Mormon claim that the gifts of the spirit ceased with the deaths of the apostles, of course, is invalid. I have already worked through that-- very important for me. That is one of the issues that distanced me from our Church.
to placing the cross on their new temple in the countryside of Rome. Is that correct???
Click to expand...
that “cross” is nothing more than the conventional placement of panels on a door. People will interpret it based on their own perspective.
 
KathleenGee said:
There is a Pope Honorious…spelling?..who was a pretty bad pope, morally speaking. Yet he taught infallibly because the Holy Spirit prevents the papacy from teaching error on faith and morals. Pope Honorious taught that Christ had 2 wills, one human and one divine, but He sought only to seek the will of His heavenly Father.
Click to expand...
Kathleen,
I think you have confused your history. Pope Honorius taught a heretical doctrine of Christ.
Pope John XII would be one of the prime examples of an immoral Pope.
The excuse for Honorius is “was he teaching from the chair of Peter or his own opinion.”
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
Kathleen,
I think you have confused your history. Pope Honorius taught a heretical doctrine of Christ.
Pope John XII would be one of the prime examples of an immoral Pope.
The excuse for Honorius is “was he teaching from the chair of Peter or his own opinion.”
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Hi TOmNossor - The Catholic Church aside, how do Mormons explain the continuity of Christianity in the East? Specifically, the Coptics in Egypt who have ties to Saint Mark?

The Mormons need to prove that there was a total apostasy and that Christianity did not spread at all. When one looks at the Coptics in Egypt and their continual line of Christian belief since the time of Saint Mark who was taught by Saint Peter it almost laughable.

Anyone can take shots at the Catholics and their history, as the Mormons often do, but how do you explain the churches in the East that were far away from the problems in Rome and that part of the world?

I have been reading about Early Church history and the Mormon claim that Christianity did not survive is obviously false. I suggest reading the Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett that include the writings of Saints Ignatius, Clement, Justin, and Irenaeus.
Despite tremendous persecution the Catholic Church grew and fought against heresies left and right.
It would be a good idea for Mormons to read about leaders who propped up teaching a new brand of so-called Christianity and the early Christians who gave their very lives to keep Christianity pure as the Apostles taught from Jesus and passed on to their successors. It is very similar to Joseph Smith and his new brand of religion that the Mormons now want to claim is Christian. Joseph Smith made it very clear that his religion was different, and it most certainly is, and did not want to be linked with any other religion. Now Mormons want to be considered Christian.
Read early Church history and discover what Christianity was/is all about.
 
lax16 said:
Hi TOmNossor - The Catholic Church aside, how do Mormons explain the continuity of Christianity in the East? Specifically, the Coptics in Egypt who have ties to Saint Mark?
Click to expand...
lax16 said:
The Mormons need to prove that there was a total apostasy and that Christianity did not spread at all. When one looks at the Coptics in Egypt and their continual line of Christian belief since the time of Saint Mark who was taught by Saint Peter it almost laughable.

Anyone can take shots at the Catholics and their history, as the Mormons often do, but how do you explain the churches in the East that were far away from the problems in Rome and that part of the world?

I have been reading about Early Church history and the Mormon claim that Christianity did not survive is obviously false. I suggest reading the Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett that include the writings of Saints Ignatius, Clement, Justin, and Irenaeus.
Despite tremendous persecution the Catholic Church grew and fought against heresies left and right.
It would be a good idea for Mormons to read about leaders who propped up teaching a new brand of so-called Christianity and the early Christians who gave their very lives to keep Christianity pure as the Apostles taught from Jesus and passed on to their successors. It is very similar to Joseph Smith and his new brand of religion that the Mormons now want to claim is Christian. Joseph Smith made it very clear that his religion was different, and it most certainly is, and did not want to be linked with any other religion. Now Mormons want to be considered Christian.
Read early Church history and discover what Christianity was/is all about.
Click to expand...
For East and West, I would take the data offered by Father Sullivan and by Nibley and suggest that the Apostolic authority was not continued. Eno’s book applies rather directly to the Papacy so the East would be less concerned with it.

That being said, IF Mormon paradigm is accepted it is obvious that there was an apostasy. I have spent a lot of time in the past explaining that one idea or another embraced by the CoJCoLDS may be irrational when you plug it into Catholic presuppositions, but unmoored from aspects of Catholicism that I reject it ceases to be the howlingly ridiculous thing it is accused of being.

The LDS paradigm is that the leader of God’s Church received supernatural public revelation for the guidance of His Church. Old Testament Prophets received this revelation. New Testament Apostles/Prophets received this revelation. And Restoration Testament Apostles/Prophet receive (claim to receive) this revelation. The Catholic Church does not claim that the Pope has the ability to receive supernatural public revelation (see Vatican I). This in the mind of a LDS is a STRONG indicator that Catholicism is not God’s church on earth (at least not in the way that the CoJCoLDS is).

Now, I am well versed in Catholic thought concerning the successors of the Apostles being Bishops. I think Father Sullivan and Robert Eno have a case to be made concerning the DEVELOPMENT of the monoepiscopate (and its position as successor to the Apostles) and concerning the DEVELOPMENT of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (and his position as successor to Peter).

BTW, I have read all of Ignatius and Clement and a lot of Irenaeus and Justin. I do not konw Rod Bennett, but I wonder if he would cause me the same problem the below three guys do.

I look at the apologetics I see from Madrid, Keating, and Akin and I see a rejection of Cardinal Newman and a denial of the necessity of a theory of development. I look at some of the receptions Newman received from his theory that called it very Protestant. So is Newman’s theory part of Catholicism? If so why is history bent to avoid embracing Newman’s ideas?

I hope the above helps some. I hope to have the strength to focus on my current and future Trinity threads instead of here.
I cannot prove from history there was an apostasy beyond a reasonable doubt, but I see evidence. I cannot from history prove that the Restoration was from God, but I see evidence.

I will say that as of now were there no CoJCoLDS that I think makes a strong case for itself as a Restoration, I would not be a Restorationist-in-waiting. Instead I would be a Catholic (though I am at present talking myself out of accepting the development of the Trinity as a march towards truth via infallible councils as I think even Newman’s theory would require).
Charity, TOm

P.S. I didn’t intend to post here to Kathleen, but the irony of her choosing one of the HARDEST Popes to reconcile with the doctrine of infallibility was too much for me. I know of no evidence that Honorious was an immoral fellow, but he embraced Monothelitism (he was discussed at Vatican I and I am pretty sure Newman mentioned him as one of the reasons he wished Vatican I had not pushed towards defining infallibility when it did - though I reject the idea that Newman didn’t believe in infallibility before and after Vatican I, just a qualified definition like the one Vatican I provided).
 
Tom, given the fact that people’s beliefs drive they way they put things together, can you simply accept that we see things differently than you, and only God knows the ultimate truth? So far as we Catholics know, our perceptions are right. You believe differently, and that is your right. 🤷

I mean, it is pretty simple, and that is as it should be. The Book of Mormon is fiction, derived from many other works available in the late 1820’s. When that falls, everything else falls.
 
I am not sure about the spelling of this pope’s name, Pope Honorious because I heard the testimony of a man working on several master’s degrees, who when he began studying the Early Church Fathers, came to a complete stop with his studies.

He still had the problem with infallibility and was very aware of 3 immoral popes he brought up to question. He went across the Bay, San Francisco Bay, to talk to the Dominicans about the problem of infallibility. If I recall the story properly, they said there were writings in Greek that were sources showing teachings of past popes who lived dubious Christian personal lives.

He was recommended to visit a Slavic priest who was a true scholar in resourcing Greek writings of past popes. He got the piece, and I thought the interviewee on EWTN said it was Pope Honorious. So I am not sure if this is the correct spelling. The priest scholar translated the Greek into English, and in spite of his own personal behaviors…whatever they were as I am not aware of them, and read how the Pope defined Christ having 2 wills, one human and one divine, but that Christ always sought the will of the Father.

With that, he became a Catholic.

When we say the Church began as a seed, it comprised of the 12 apostles, His followers and disciples, Mary, and other women of the Church. Pentecost began with them in the Upper Room. The Apostles witnessed the teachings of Christ and His Personhood, and were very clear in their teachings to stay faithful to them because they were the ones chosen…even before their time, to be Christ’s apostles, and foundation of the Church with Him, He the Cornerstone.

There has been consistent truthful teachings that we call the deposit of faith. The Church has the full deposit of faith.

About the Eastern churches, the Great Schism was due primarily to disputes over jurisdictions of peoples of different cultures, politics, and geography. But the Creed and Mass and sacraments are valid because the Orthodox Churches were all founded by the Apostles. These same bishops were abhorred by the new stands of the reformers and refused to go with them in revolting against the Church.

You have to understand the difference from the great Tradition of transmitting the apostolic faith vs the small ecclesial traditions, where people express the same faith and sacraments and creed, but in various forms.

I will have to scan the books you mention, Tom…Yes, I would agree that more heavier topics are better covered elsewhere.

I always like to introduce people to www.calledtocommunion.com because it has discussions and follow up which are more indepth.

The Orthodox and Latin approach faith differently, but one is more mystical, the other more intellectual.

The very essence of our faith and practice has not changed.
 
TOmNossor said:
For East and West, I would take the data offered by Father Sullivan and by Nibley and suggest that the Apostolic authority was not continued. Eno’s book applies rather directly to the Papacy so the East would be less concerned with it.
Click to expand...
Hi TOm - I would not take the data offered by anyone other than the first Christians themselves.
My question is this - How can there be widespread Christianity in the East if there was an apostasy as the Mormons claim? You cannot dismiss the question and still claim a total apostasy .
The words of the Early Church Fathers show a clear fight to keep heresy out of the Early Church and they were not going to let heresy creep in or an apostasy to happen. Jesus promised it would not happen.
That being said, IF Mormon paradigm is accepted it is obvious that there was an apostasy. I have spent a lot of time in the past explaining that one idea or another embraced by the CoJCoLDS may be irrational when you plug it into Catholic presuppositions, but unmoored from aspects of Catholicism that I reject it ceases to be the howlingly ridiculous thing it is accused of being.
Click to expand...
It is not plugged into Catholic presuppositions, but the writings from many early Church historians. Some Catholic, some not.
People wrote about life in the Early Church and some of their writings have survived and we can read them. You don’t need someone to tell you what they said, you can read it for yourself.
To say it is only a Catholic history it incorrect. There were Gnostics, Docetists, Stoics, pagans, etc along with the beginnings of Christianity fighting to take root.
The LDS paradigm is that the leader of God’s Church received supernatural public revelation for the guidance of His Church. Old Testament Prophets received this revelation. New Testament Apostles/Prophets received this revelation. And Restoration Testament Apostles/Prophet receive (claim to receive) this revelation. The Catholic Church does not claim that the Pope has the ability to receive supernatural public revelation (see Vatican I). This in the mind of a LDS is a STRONG indicator that Catholicism is not God’s church on earth (at least not in the way that the CoJCoLDS is).
Click to expand...
The great apostasy never happened therefore the LDS claim for a modern prophet to receive divine revelation is a moot point. Jesus never said he would leave a prophet on earth to receive divine revelation. He said he would leave the Holy Spirit and He did.
Now, I am well versed in Catholic thought concerning the successors of the Apostles being Bishops. I think Father Sullivan and Robert Eno have a case to be made concerning the DEVELOPMENT of the monoepiscopate (and its position as successor to the Apostles) and concerning the DEVELOPMENT of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (and his position as successor to Peter).

BTW, I have read all of Ignatius and Clement and a lot of Irenaeus and Justin. I do not konw Rod Bennett, but I wonder if he would cause me the same problem the below three guys do.
Click to expand...
Their story is this - they fought against heresy, fought to keep the Church true to the teachings of Jesus through the Apostles, and were martyred for it. Who can take issue with that?
I look at the apologetics I see from Madrid, Keating, and Akin and I see a rejection of Cardinal Newman and a denial of the necessity of a theory of development. I look at some of the receptions Newman received from his theory that called it very Protestant. So is Newman’s theory part of Catholicism? If so why is history bent to avoid embracing Newman’s ideas?
Click to expand...
Can you please provide specific examples of how these apologists reject Cardinal Newman?
Why does Newman matter to you?
I hope the above helps some. I hope to have the strength to focus on my current and future Trinity threads instead of here.
I cannot prove from history there was an apostasy beyond a reasonable doubt, but I see evidence. I cannot from history prove that the Restoration was from God, but I see evidence.
Click to expand...
From an LDS perspective, one would look for any problems in the Early Church or 1500’s to prove the apostasy. However, the LDS had a great apostasy in the beginnings of their church and they are still around today claiming to be the one true church.
I have no idea why a bumpy beginning makes for a total apostasy?
I will say that as of now were there no CoJCoLDS that I think makes a strong case for itself as a Restoration, I would not be a Restorationist-in-waiting. Instead I would be a Catholic (though I am at present talking myself out of accepting the development of the Trinity as a march towards truth via infallible councils as I think even Newman’s theory would require).
Click to expand...
I think you should believe the words of Jesus Christ that He would stay with His Church until the end of time.
Obviously, there are many kinds of people in the world and there is going to be debate about this and that.
However, to claim the Catholic Church went into apostasy almost 2,000 years ago is ridiculous seeing how my relatives have been Catholic as far back as I can find.
 
Jerusha, glad you have it the book I was referred to by my pastor. I found it very informative regarding the last years of domination by the Roman Empire, where Christians endured the greater persecutions Christians than those at the beginning, where Christianity was almost wiped out.

The book explains the help Constantine provided the bishops and rebuilding church buildings for them, as well as the influx of atleast 1 million pagans who became baptized Christians.

We also have to remember the inclination towards heresies by ancient Christian populations, be they Egypt or these Eastern countries. I am thinking also of Nestorianism and the development of Arianism. There were different affects on different cultural and geographical locations.

But nevertheless, the authentic deposit of faith was always present.
 
Thanks. I will give those sections another read. I just recently got it with my mother’s stuff, and gave it a quick read during a downtime in my perpetual research and rewrite and review cycle. :rolleyes:
 
**
IF
Click to expand...
Mormon paradigm is accepted** Tom, to put it simply, we don’t accept the Mormon paradigm. Mormons have already been proven to re-write history to their own understanding. What in the world would ever make us think that the Mormon perception of the early history of Christianity is any different?
 
Jerusha said:
**** Tom, to put it simply, we don’t accept the Mormon paradigm. Mormons have already been proven to re-write history to their own understanding. What in the world would ever make us think that the Mormon perception of the early history of Christianity is any different?
Click to expand...
Mormons have their view of early Christianity from a con man who lived in the 1800s. Catholics have their view of early Christianity from those who were actually the early Christians.
 
TOmNossor said:
Kathleen,
I think you have confused your history. Pope Honorius taught a heretical doctrine of Christ.
Pope John XII would be one of the prime examples of an immoral Pope.
The excuse for Honorius is “was he teaching from the chair of Peter or his own opinion.”
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
The issue of Pope Honorius…did he actually commit a heresy? Or you believe only to discredit the Catholic Church?

What is the real story?

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15826
 
To have an apostasy, Christ must have failed. So what you mormons are saying is Christ failed and He makes mistakes? So Christ can fail again and your church would nothing? Do you not understand how absurd this sounds? You would take a mans word over our Saviours Word? I pray for your souls because to deny Christ is damnation. Sorry, but its true.
 
TexanKnight said:
good stuff
Click to expand...
Hmmnnn. Yes. He was exercising great caution on the issue, having dealt with other, more pressing issues during his papacy. The doctrine must be expressed very carefully, ironing out all the loopholes-- Jesus, in His human nature, was perfectly submitted to God, but still had free will, or the ability to rebel. The Gospels present three occasions in which this is manifested.

Funny-- I am just beginning to read about that episode in Mosheim. 😃
 
Mosheim, despite his anti-Catholicism, dismisses the whole episode as a quibble over semantics. Which indeed it was. The controversy has only re-emerged in recent years.
 
kimg901 said:
To have an apostasy, Christ must have failed. So what you mormons are saying is Christ failed and He makes mistakes? So Christ can fail again and your church would nothing? Do you not understand how absurd this sounds? You would take a mans word over our Saviours Word? I pray for your souls because to deny Christ is damnation. Sorry, but its true.
Click to expand...
As I have always said…for there to have been an Apostasy, Christ had to be a cruel, weak liar. That is the only way for an Apostasy to take place
 
That is what it is all about.

Our church is founded on Jesus Christ.

Mormonism is based on Joseph Smith.

Pope Honorious did not live a virtuous Christian life, but through the Holy Spirit he was able to teach on faith and morals infallibly. I used his case to prove that, as I myself have been wanting to read up on infallible teachings by the ‘bad’ popes prior to the Reformation.

The Protestant searching finally came to the teaching in Greek, and took it to a most accurate translator, who then wrote Honorious’ teaching in English…word for word, and this converted the Protestant…what he had been looking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top