A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[SteveVH]

Sorry, the first part was a response to you. When I mention Donatist, that part onward I was addressing him

Okay, I get it. (I’m a little slow sometimes.)

 

[donatist59]

What else do you see as the essential draw of restorationism? What else do you find are responses to restorationists that at least get them to think, if not meet some success in getting through to them the problems with their approach? I have a real interest in this, since my wife and her family are restorationists (of a conservative breakaway church from the RLDS–I presume one of thos “Missouri Mormon” groups you’re talking about). I’d love to talk with you more about your experiences and what you think is the best way to engage people in a discussion that could lead to a more full realization of Christ and his Church. (I realize you aren’t Catholic…but it sounds like you’re Anglican, presumably of a brand that is pretty “small c” catholic in nature, given your comments?)

Which breakaway? I was a member of the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for twenty years (minus a short hiatus with the Remnant Church). And yes, I am Anglican (Episcopalian; like Robin Williams says, ‘Catholic Lite – all the ritual and half the guilt!’ . Is her family in the Restoration Branches?

For me, the key was realizing that there was no “great apostasy.” If there was no apostasy then there was no need for a restoration. Another thing that really got my attention was the account in John 6 of the real presence in the eucharist (reinforced by 1 Corinthians and other passages). That such a fundamental doctrine could be ‘missed’ by every single Mormon group really shook me. The recent work on Book of Mormon DNA has always been in the back of my mind as well – if there was no Near Eastern migration to prehistoric America, then Mormonism collapses.

 

[donatist59]

www.calledtocommunion.com has an article in its archives that I have greatly enjoyed and benefitted.

Thank you – as a former Mormon historian and now Episcopalian, that was a very interesting read!

 

[KathleenGee]

You are welcome! I try to spend more time praying for re-unification of Christians, and conversions to the truth for Mormons and certain Baptist sects.

 

[Arandur]

Which breakaway? I was a member of the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for twenty years (minus a short hiatus with the Remnant Church). And yes, I am Anglican (Episcopalian; like Robin Williams says, ‘Catholic Lite – all the ritual and half the guilt!’ . Is her family in the Restoration Branches?

You guessed it! They used to be RLDS, but went with the Restoration Branches after the split in the '80s, and most of their branch also didn’t go with the JCRB (Joint Council of Restoration Branches), that semi-split that happened like 5-7 years ago or something (I wish I had paid more attention to that; we were in CO at the time, but that all went down a couple years into our marriage).

My wife has a good friend that I think was Remnant Church. I thought you said you had also been associated with the Utah LDS? I had a girlfriend in college who was part of them.

“High Church” Anglican? Diet Catholic, but with all that liturgical umami?

Are you in MO, then, if you don’t mind my asking? We are, now (Independence–the “Center Place” ). Most people are familiar with Utah LDS/Mormons, and not so much with the other sects–and then only the CoC/RLDS if that. Most of the other sects seem to be centered in MO like the CoC–is it more or less all of these that you refer to as the “Missouri Mormons?”

Anyway, in my experience, the Restoration Branches (and, I think, the Remnant Church) are much more similar to traditional/mainline/conservative Protestants in most of their beliefs.

For me, the key was realizing that there was no “great apostasy.” If there was no apostasy then there was no need for a restoration. Another thing that really got my attention was the account in John 6 of the real presence in the eucharist (reinforced by 1 Corinthians and other passages). That such a fundamental doctrine could be ‘missed’ by every single Mormon group really shook me. The recent work on Book of Mormon DNA has always been in the back of my mind as well – if there was no Near Eastern migration to prehistoric America, then Mormonism collapses.

I have volumes of notes on all this and have been searching for the best, most charitable, but also effective way to engage in real discussion. I’m tired of dodging the main issues with little chats about individual doctrines, though, when those are really secondary to the main claims of a church.

I’ve been on the verge of launching and publicizing a blog on a bunch of these issues for some time now.

Oh, and Kathleen, that “Ecclesial Deism” looks pretty dynamite! I’m about halfway through the article (looks like there’s tons more discussion in the comments, too). It looks like the author has a previous article that more directly addresses the need and evidence for the physical, visible Church. I think that will be important to flesh out, too, since the Gnostic spiritual/invisible church is such a tempting dodge for so many people.

In addition to that, I have heard the Restorationists use statements like, “well, God took the church up into heaven for xxxx years, and that’s how the Gates of Hell didn’t prevail against it.” They add to the Gnostic idea the concept of the “Spiritual Bodies” and whatnot, giving that as an excuse and replacement for physical bodies and presence on this earth.

 

[Porknpie]

Bingo! That’s largely why I left Mormonism. I grew increasingly uncomfortable with Mormonism’s doubletake on the sacraments of the Church. While Mormons believe that baptism is efficacious, that confirmation really does confer the Holy Spirit, and that ordination actually does bestow a divine power that otherwise isn’t there (all well and good), Mormons then turn right around and insist that the eucharist is a purely symbolic ‘memorial supper’. (Which is really ironic since the Book of Mormon itself speaks of “the body and blood of Christ” in very literal terms, and the only time that Mormons kneel – ever – in public worship is when the eucharist is confected, if I can use those un-Mormon terms).

How can they claim to be “original Christianity” if they got that part so fundamentally wrong?

Donatist,

Welcome to CAF. I started the thread below for ex-Mormons to share their journey of faith. Would you mind sharing and posting your story above?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=705534

Thank you,

Pork

 

[KathleenGee]

Agree!

Consider this: At the Last Supper, Christ chose Peter as head of the Church. Then so many minutes later, – Peter pleaded with Him not to go through with His mission. Christ then answered him, ‘Get behind me, Satan, your ways are man’s ways!’

We believe Christ truly triumphed over the flesh, and the flesh that dies to itself and has the new life of Christ within him, chosen by Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit and confirmed by lawful church authority…is truly able to administrate Christ’s Church.

The life of the Church is not the people or laws but rather the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and His power in the Church, not man.

We do not see church as something symbolic or relative, but that which is concrete and real, the Word Made Flesh among us.

 

[KathleenGee]

‘Calledtocommunion’, has numerous articles that define and articulate the deep theological foundations that separate Christians. Many who are participating are former Protestant ministers who found the truth of Christ’s church through early church history, the early church fathers.

Its many articles speak eloquently and succulently of theological differences, and how various ministers shared their faith walk, history, and how the truth became illuminated to them.

Great site and excellent learning tool.

Many of these Protestant ministers will do great work in helping restore our sacred unity as Christians. As the darkness in the world increases, this is the very time when Christ begins to work through us, elevate us, and through the Holy Spirit, take away our fears and give us new courage, direction and testimony of witness and word.

 

[donatist59]

There will be no further Revelation.

From my ex-Mormon, devil’s advocate p.o.v., that interpretation would rule out all revelation after Jesus – which would rule out every word of the New Testament (except quotations from Jesus).

I no longer believe the Mormon position that an open canon of scripture is necessary. (Although the LDS haven’t actually canonized a revelatory text since 1918, the Missouri branches of Mormonism continue to do so regularly and the Community of Christ canonized its most recent revelation, D&C 164, in 2010.) That being said, I also find it hard to believe in a static and unchanging faith, or the assumption that we perfectly understand our own religion already.

The Catholic Church as much as any other has changed some of its beliefs over time. Perhaps those beliefs are peripheral rather than central, and we can argue till the cows come home whether any of these changed beliefs were proclaimed “infallibly” or not. But clearly, nobody can credibly maintain that the declaration on religious liberty at the Second Vatican Council was a “development” of an unchanging truth that was already “implicit” in Unam Sanctam (where civil authorities were called upon to exterminate non-Catholics, and where the Eastern Orthodox were declared to be non-Christian).

There is nothing wrong with changing one’s teaching as long as the changes bring the church closer to the revelation of God in Christ. And that, I think, is what “revelation” means for Christians today – the deeper and more correct understanding of what’s already been “revealed” but the understanding of which has been obscured by our cultural blinders. As an Episcopalian I would of course gladly add that the ordination of women and Gay people is just such a deeper appreciation of revealed truth, in this case that in Christ there is no male or female.

 

[donatist59]

“High Church” Anglican? Diet Catholic, but with all that liturgical umami?

Are you in MO, then, if you don’t mind my asking? We are, now (Independence–the “Center Place” ). Most people are familiar with Utah LDS/Mormons, and not so much with the other sects–and then only the CoC/RLDS if that. Most of the other sects seem to be centered in MO like the CoC–is it more or less all of these that you refer to as the “Missouri Mormons?”

Anyway, in my experience, the Restoration Branches (and, I think, the Remnant Church) are much more similar to traditional/mainline/conservative Protestants in most of their beliefs.

Graceland history professor Bill Russell, who is a good friend of mine, refers to the Restoration Branches as “Southern Baptists with two extra books of scripture to interpret strictly.”

And yeah, my parish (All Saints’ in Milwaukee) is very high-church. I love it… my wife, who was raised Methodist, can’t stand it. She loves the people and the theology, but the bells-and-smells worship sets off her ADD.

Cool to learn you’re in Independence – I miss Independence terribly. I haven’t returned there since I became Episcopalian but I know I will return within the next few years. Have you toured the local sites (C of C temple, Liberty Jail, Temple Lot church)? A book I’d recommend: Steven Shields, “Divergent Paths of the Restoration.” Thumbnail sketches of hundreds of Restoration movement break-offs. Here in Wisconsin of course we have a small group of faithful Strangites. I left the Restoration Church around 2002 for a couple of years and joined the Remnant, after Marcus Juby (founder of the Restoration Church) quit his own church (!) and joined the Utah Mormons. The Remnant seems to be all about class; if you’re not wealthy, you’re not welcome.

 

[pablope]

For me, the key was realizing that there was no “great apostasy.” If there was no apostasy then there was no need for a restoration.

.

Can you share these reasons…or how did you get to this conclusion there was no great apostasy?

 

[donatist59]

Can you share these reasons…or how did you get to this conclusion there was no great apostasy?

Thanks for the opportunity.

Let me start by saying I’m Episcopalian, so I take a very broad view of the early Church. I see Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans as sharing in a historical priesthood/episcopacy that started when Jesus ordained his first apostles. I would also go further and include the Nestorians and Monophysites under that umbrella as well, believing that the theological hair-splitting of the early Councils did more harm than good to the cause of Christ. (A cursory look at a religious map of the Middle East today should hammer that point home with a vengeance.)

When I was in college, I had a Coptic Christian roommate. This was at the same time I was joining the Utah Mormon Church (I was born and raised atheist). He and I would talk religion till all hours of the night. I really respected his insights and opinions; he was my first contact with small-C catholic Christianity. Decades later, when I was Church Historian of the Restoration Church, my wife and I visited Cairo, Egypt. What struck me there was how millions of Coptic Christians had managed to maintain their faith despite a millennium and a half of brutal repression. How could I possibly say that these people were not Christians, while I, living comfortably in the American Midwest, claimed that my church with a world-wide membership under 200 people were the “only true Christians” on earth?

At about the same time, I was doing some in-depth historical reading about the Eucharist. To me now, it is as plain as day that there is something there besides bread and wine. I became convinced that the Real Presence (however you want to define that) is fundamental Christian doctrine – John 6 pretty much proves it. Yet every faction of Mormonism denies it. So here I was, trying to argue that Original Christianity had fallen into apostasy and was restored through Mormonism, while at the same time understanding that the primitive understanding of sacrifice and real presence in the Eucharist was something the “Mormon restoration of Primitive Christianity” rejected.

There were several other issues but those stand out. As I began to look for a church to attend, I realized that much of the Church history and theology that I had read for decades (Wright, Frend, Chadwick, and J.N.D. Kelly, though not Pelikan or Metzger) was written from an Anglican perspective. I started attending the Episcopal Church and the rest, as they say, is history. I was baptized and confirmed last November.

 

[pablope]

Thanks for the opportunity.

You are welcome and thank your for sharing…

What struck me there was how millions of Coptic Christians had managed to maintain their faith despite a millennium and a half of brutal repression. How could I possibly say that these people were not Christians, while I, living comfortably in the American Midwest, claimed that my church with a world-wide membership under 200 people were the “only true Christians” on earth?

 

[Arandur]

From my ex-Mormon, devil’s advocate p.o.v., that interpretation would rule out all revelation after Jesus – which would rule out every word of the New Testament (except quotations from Jesus)…

I think you misunderstand me. This gets back to what we mean by “revelation.” One of the greatest barriers to communication between Mormons and Catholics has been that when we say that word, we mean different things. Catholics recognize several senses of the word, and Mormons add senses to it and then can’t seem to focus on any one sense, but consider them all at once.

In brief, what I mean is that all public revelation necessary for salvation is completed in Christ. Since Christ IS God, and became fully human, this was essentially by definition the total revelation of God to man–unless you think God held something back and Jesus was only some % God less than 100%. This goes back to the need to properly understand who Christ is (and hence the huge effort the Church had to make in the first centuries to defeat heresies involving right understanding of Christ); all theology flows from and is influenced by this.

Now, we don’t understand all that was revealed, not by a long shot. Not even the Apostles did. In fact, I would dare to claim that the Church as a whole (though likely no or at least not many individuals) understands Christ’s revelation more now than even the Apostles did.

The reason that public revelation is said to end with the Apostles is that the qualifying distinction between those Apostles and their successors was that the Apostles had personally been with Jesus, face to face, physically, here on earth, walking with him. Thus, they encountered him completely, and since he himself IS Truth, God, complete revelation, what the Apostles have transmitted to us is that relationship.

Next we have the fact that the Church IS Christ/Christ IS the Church. Again, the all-important Incarnational understanding shows its influence. Any argument used against the nature of Christ as fully man and fully God applies against Scripture (the Word), the Eucharist, and the Church. The Church is a Divine Institution just as it is a Human Institution. It is Christ in his humanity and in his divinity, ensouled by the Holy Spirit. Thus the Church already contains within her ALL of revelation, being Divine.

What we do as we grow as a Church is come to understand more of what has been revealed, and that by the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit safeguarding us from falsehood. What we Catholics (and Scriptures) call “continuing guidance” here, Mormons would call “continuing revelation.” We do disagree in that we believe that no new revelation necessary for salvation will be given, nor can anything come which contradicts that which came before.

However, while we Catholics have a closed canon of Scripture, we still recognize and revere the Holy Spirit’s guidance through the Magisterium. In a sense, our Magisterial documents are very much like the other “Standard Works” of the Mormons, and the continuing “D&C.”

But clearly, nobody can credibly maintain that the declaration on religious liberty at the Second Vatican Council was a “development” of an unchanging truth that was already “implicit” in Unam Sanctam (where civil authorities were called upon to exterminate non-Catholics, and where the Eastern Orthodox were declared to be non-Christian).

I’ll have to research this. I’m not familiar with it. What I’m used to seeing is that historically, there have been many abuses, even with explicit consent of local Church authorities, but no official Magisterial endorsement–even a rejection of the action then or later. Such as when the then-pope excommunicated the 4th Crusaders who sacked Constantinople, or how the popes tried to rein in the Spanish Inquisition and insisted that the Church had no authority over non-Catholics. There are plenty of statements throughout Church history that there can be no forced conversion, for instance.

There is nothing wrong with changing one’s teaching as long as the changes bring the church closer to the revelation of God in Christ. And that, I think, is what “revelation” means for Christians today – the deeper and more correct understanding of what’s already been “revealed” but the understanding of which has been obscured by our cultural blinders. As an Episcopalian I would of course gladly add that the ordination of women and Gay people is just such a deeper appreciation of revealed truth, in this case that in Christ there is no male or female.

But how do you know that? This is why you can’t have contradiction. You have to have a standard against which to compare or else one person’s judgment of what “brings the church closer to the revelation of God in Christ” is quite subjective, and you’re ultimately back to the Protestant position of “your personal interpretation wins” (a.k.a., making yourself God).

 

[KathleenGee]

Arandur, your posts are so ‘meaty’. What is your background if I may interject…just briefly…I am sorry if I missed it .

 

[Arandur]

Graceland history professor Bill Russell, who is a good friend of mine, refers to the Restoration Branches as “Southern Baptists with two extra books of scripture to interpret strictly.”

LOL, I might take that quote!

And yeah, my parish (All Saints’ in Milwaukee) is very high-church. I love it… my wife, who was raised Methodist, can’t stand it. She loves the people and the theology, but the bells-and-smells worship sets off her ADD.

I only came to love the liturgy after I studied how deeply rooted in Scripture it is, and how powerful a fulfillment of Salvation History it is, how wonderful a continuity with all believers of all times…

Cool to learn you’re in Independence – I miss Independence terribly. I haven’t returned there since I became Episcopalian but I know I will return within the next few years. Have you toured the local sites (C of C temple, Liberty Jail, Temple Lot church)? A book I’d recommend: Steven Shields, “Divergent Paths of the Restoration.” Thumbnail sketches of hundreds of Restoration movement break-offs. Here in Wisconsin of course we have a small group of faithful Strangites. I left the Restoration Church around 2002 for a couple of years and joined the Remnant, after Marcus Juby (founder of the Restoration Church) quit his own church (!) and joined the Utah Mormons. The Remnant seems to be all about class; if you’re not wealthy, you’re not welcome.

I’ve been to the Auditorium for a couple Messiah performances, until that was taken away by the KC Symphony. Wandered the MC Escher halls that made me feel like I was lost in some sort of Gnostic, Masonic labyrinth. Haven’t been in the temple or Temple Lot church, but I’ve been to many of the historic Independence sites like the jail.

There are some Wikipedia articles that seem to have some good illustrations of the restoration sects, even one that has a pretty detailed and illustrative family tree, with approximate membership numbers. That’s something that I find very telling.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur, your posts are so ‘meaty’. What is your background if I may interject…just briefly…I am sorry if I missed it .

Sorry, I missed this before. Thanks for the compliment! I have to say, I’ve been on these forums for a few years (on and off), but haven’t racked up nearly as many posts as you–you seem quite active! And thanks again for the CalledToCommunion site–lots of good stuff on there, more than I have time for. But that’s usually the case. I’ve got quite a lot of sources, just need to find time for them and organize them so I know where to go to for what, and what good sources on particular topics to pass on to people.

In answer to your question, I’m a cradle Catholic. My parents were, too, and they provided me with a Catholic education from K-12 (Lutheran pre-school, interestingly enough). I grew up in St. Louis, which used to be very Catholic, and given my school experiences, I kind of thought everyone was Catholic by default . I first really encountered challenging viewpoints in college, at Missouri State University (Springfield; SMSU when I was there). I had a lot of friends who were non-Catholic, even non-denominational, there in the “Bible Belt.” I had a roommate who was a very well-educated and very vocal Lutheran (Missouri Synod). I called him an “Arch-Lutheran.” And I was also exposed to Mormonism–had a good friend (eventually we dated) who was a Mormon, and I met my wife in my senior year–she’s a Restoration Branch Christian (the group Donatist referred to as “Southern Baptist with two extra books of Scripture to interpret strictly”–the BoM and D&C, and the JST Bible; not the LDS versions, though).

Anyway, this and some other factors had led me to really start questioning my faith in late high school through college and into my first couple years of marriage. My father had once been quite interested in theology and been active in the Church, but for the latter half of my youth hadn’t spoken much about the faith, though he did give wonderful witness by example as a good Christian businessman and father. My mother was more explicitly Catholic, though she expressed frustrations and criticisms of the Church and some of its teachings at times. So that all had contributed to my starting to question and reject.

As I looked back on it, after a childhood in Catholic schooling, I had a foundation of facts and faith, but not really much understanding about the “why” of the faith. Even with a Jesuit education at St. Louis University High school (one of the best around). I never really doubted or lost faith in God too seriously, and never really left the Church or stopped going to Mass, but I did reject many teachings of the Church for many years. I went through about a 7 year process of almost systematically questioning just about every teaching of the Church.

So despite probably among the best Catholic childhood education available, I discovered that I knew very little about the faith–or at least how to defend it and why we believe what we do.

After my 7 year (or so) investigation, I really did come to accept pretty much everything the Church teaches, and found it by far the most consistent, thorough, and rational belief system in the world. I have spent almost the 7 years since learning more and more and trying to translate what I believe and understand intellectually (where God seems to most often first lead me) to my heart.

I’ve been yearning for the past few years to share what I’ve learned and what I find so wonderful about the Catholic faith, and to defend its teachings. It’s been a long journey with a long way to go (and as you can see, I can never keep anything short–brevity is not a gift of mine ). But years of listening to Catholic radio, lots of audio resources, lots of booklets and some books, has helped me to have a lot to draw from in the jumble in my head

I try to approach my arguments more via principles and logic grounded in the more obvious points of Scripture, or other accepted common ground, than by getting into lots of nitty gritty details. I think it’s easy to get lost in the weeds when you have more foundational disagreements with people, and when showing the logical consequences of a belief can illustrate what is correct and what is not. That gets back to my discovery that the Catholic Church has the most thorough, rational, and logically-consistent belief system in the world–a tremendous evidence of its truth and Divine inspiration.

I also find history to be a very compelling witness of God’s truth, as it is a record of how He has worked among man.

/end ramblings.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Arandur for sharing with me … and us, your background that reflects so much of what you have been exposed to by various believers of different denominations of faith combined with the faith of your parents, and the extent you put to deep reflection of all you have drawn on.

Yes, I agree with you that Catholicism is the most logical and likewise well thought out religion in the world…After all, religio means to bind in Latin, and it is Christ Who makes His one true Church binding to conscience.

I am a cradle Catholic, my mother a Baptist who converted on her own. My father was in the Benedictine seminar a few years and came from a most Catholic family background.

You provide alot of scope to your posts, and some times I cannot get through them all…as i do others…finding it hard even to read them on computer screen…used to reading print and scoping it to make sure I understand correctly.

I thank you very much for contributing and expanding our thought and understanding!

kathleen

 

[Love4All]

According to what may or may not be accepted as the Mother of God through Father Gobbi, the peak of Antichrist’s reign was to be 1998. It seems to me that would be the peak of the Great Apostasy, too.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Ignore all this nonsense. So-called “prophesies”, Catholic or otherwise, come perilously close to superstition.