A date for the "Great Apostasy"

  • Thread starter Thread starter batman1973
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow this thread moves fast.

Tom, I’ll admit that your “take” on the great apostasy is something I’ve never seen before. But it seems to me like your playing with a double-edged sword here. Those same points you make (wasn’t clear at the time, succession evolved later on, lack of public revelation…) also make LDS teachings about succession after Joesph Smith’s death extremely vulnerable. In fact it may well make LDS claims to succession even weaker than Catholic ones because where there is only silence about the succession from Peter to Linus until later on, there is actually positive evidence against the succession from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young (namely sworn testimony from witnesses that Joseph Smith had ordained his son Joseph Smith III as his successor, and Joseph Smith III’s continued exercise of prophetic gifts that Brigham Young did not do, and Brigham Young’s addition of polygamy as a doctrine). Lets not forget that the chief evidence for Brigham’s succession was an apparition.

I don’t see how you get around this problem without resorting to a double standard.
 
Old_Ephriam said:
Wow this thread moves fast.

Tom, I’ll admit that your “take” on the great apostasy is something I’ve never seen before. But it seems to me like your playing with a double-edged sword here. Those same points you make (wasn’t clear at the time, succession evolved later on, lack of public revelation…) also make LDS teachings about succession after Joesph Smith’s death extremely vulnerable. In fact it may well make LDS claims to succession even weaker than Catholic ones because where there is only silence about the succession from Peter to Linus until later on, there is actually positive evidence against the succession from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young (namely sworn testimony from witnesses that Joseph Smith had ordained his son Joseph Smith III as his successor, and Joseph Smith III’s continued exercise of prophetic gifts that Brigham Young did not do, and Brigham Young’s addition of polygamy as a doctrine). Lets not forget that the chief evidence for Brigham’s succession was an apparition.

I don’t see how you get around this problem without resorting to a double standard.
Click to expand...
I think this relates to the point that Catholics claim Christ promised to “guide us unto all truth”, yet, that didn’t happen. So now, Mormons are staking this claim for themselves, with a claim that their church cannot fail. How is it that Jesus will protect the Mormon church, but not the church that He established on His Apostles?

I think the answer is, Mormon believe Mormon claims, therefore, what Mormonism claims is what should be believed. Evidence for what is believed is looked for, at the expense of ignoring fact, entirely. History becomes what one believes, rather than looking at it to see what it actually says.

Circular, yes, but Mormons (not just Tom) can make you dizzy with the circles they spin.
 
TOmNossor said:
I remember when I first read Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. I almost screamed that they had no idea that they were the successors of the Apostles.

I found it particularly shocking that Clement didn’t know he was the Pope.

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Probably because you are seeing how authority is exercised or recognized through the lens of today…not in the time they existed.

For all you know, they had a different way of exercising and realizing authority differently than we do today.

In Clement’s epistle to corinth…do you think he is not exercising authority when he wrote this:

1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,
 
Old_Ephriam said:
Wow this thread moves fast.

Tom, I’ll admit that your “take” on the great apostasy is something I’ve never seen before. But it seems to me like your playing with a double-edged sword here. successor, and Joseph Smith III’s continued exercise of prophetic gifts that Brigham Young did not do, and Brigham Young’s addition of polygamy as a doctrine).

Lets not forget that the chief evidence for Brigham’s succession was an apparition.

I don’t see how you get around this problem without resorting to a double standard.
Click to expand...
Look at the example of revelation to St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

The revelation to St Paul was to go submit his teaching…not go out on his own. So any subsequent apparition has to follow this example. So how does the apparition claimed by BY follow this?
 
So how does the apparition claimed by BY follow this?
Click to expand...
The apparition was that BY’s followers, hearing him speak, claimed that they saw him as looking like JS. And in reality, they did not look at all alike.
 
FabiusMaximus, TexanKnight, Kimg901, Lax16, Jerusha, RebeccaJ, and Pablope;

I have read this thread and even the links offered. I have a question that I was hoping you would answer. It seems clear to me that the majority of you believe that Clement of Rome was cognizant of his authority as the successor or Peter and the head of the earthly church. Is that true of any of you?

I fully acknowledge that a man in Rome in the first century will not be able to lead in the way a modern man can. I will also submit that there were surely heretics who rejected the authority of the Pope and ultimately the EOs do as well. But, did Clement know he was the Pope?

Anyone else Catholic or non-Catholic can answer this question if they would like of course.

Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
But, did Clement know he was the Pope?
Click to expand...
Yes. Here’s why:

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

**From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church. **

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

[cont.]
 
The writings of other members of the early Church supports the idea of continuing Apostolic Succession. For example, the Apostle John discipled a man known today as Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp, in turn, discipled a man known as Irenaeus of Lyons. Around 180 AD, Irenaeus recorded the names of the leaders of the early church beginning with Peter down to his own day; thus, we have the following from a second-century (pre-Constantinian) Christian with impeccable credentials:

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

In this passage, Irenaeus traces the succession of the early Christian Church leaders from Peter down to Eleutherus in his own day—a span of approximately 120 years. Using other historical records, we can continue to trace the leadership of that same Church from Eleutherus all the way down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

The existence and leadership of this Church is well-documented and unassailable historical fact. The connection between the modern Catholic Church and the pre-Constantinian Church of Peter, James and John is undeniable.

These early eyewitness accounts together with the testimony of Sacred Scripture prove the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine, and they drive a stake through the heart of any argument that the New Testament churches were independent of one another and not actually local congregations of the One Church led by the local Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
 
Jerusha and Old Ephraim;
I am well aware of what I think is commonly called, “the succession crisis.” I have not read Jerusha’s book recommendation, but I have read a book devoted to this, articles devoted to this, and numerous other things that touch upon this subject.
I am a LDS, aka a Brighamite. I do not believe that the succession is as clear as most Brighamites claim, but I do think Brighamites have a strong position.

Now, do I believe it related to the passing of authority from Peter to Linus/Cletus/Clement. I do not think it is close at all.
All those who stood in the line: Jesus, Peter, Joseph Smith, ??? claimed to stand in the line. Brigham made the claim. Rigdon made the claim. Joseph Smith III when he was old enough made the claim. Strange made the claim. They all had different reasons for why they made the claim (it is interesting that Joseph Smith III’s reasons no longer apply to those who stand in the list he stands in, but with continuing revelation that is not an absolute disqualifier). These men and their followers (be they a large volume of followers or a small volume of followers) made their case. When Brigham Young lead the church he spoke as if he thought he was Christ’s representative on earth responsible for the one true church a restoration of the Early Church. When Strange lead his church he spoke as if he thought he was Christ’s representative on earth responsible for the one true church a restoration of the Early Church. In egalitarian America they made these claims.
In fact, the truth is that neither of you doubt that Brigham thought himself the successor of Joseph Smith.

It is my position that where we have information from Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp and the Pastor of Hermas their words do not speak from silence. Clements words do not align with the concept that Clement thought he possessed Peterine authority defined as the person under Christ who leads the church on earth. And Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Pastor do not recognize the Bishop of Rome (be it Clement or Sixtus or ???) as the person under Christ who leads the church on earth. Whether my position on this is correct is certainly debatable.

Perhaps the existence of numerous anti-popes and/or the folks called Old Catholics (though I do not know if Old Catholics ever had a Pope) would be more similar to the offshoots that occurred at the death of Joseph Smith. I have been to SSPX mass and have two friends (one an engineer here) who worship with the SSPX; I know and have dialogued extensively with an engineer here who is a Sedavacantist; and I have been to an “Old Catholic” mass too (the priest gave me some literature and invited me back); but I do not find any of their claims more credible than the claims of Benedict XVI (who I had lunch with just last week - JUST KIDDING).

I personally judge between the CoJCoLDS and the Catholic Church, recognizing that succession crises are evidence to be weighted (SSPX and SSPV folks produce some pretty strong criticism against accepting Vatican II as and infallible council and the strongest Anti-Newman writings I have explored came from them). But I do not agree that what I see in Clement of Rome is more than tangentially similar to the succession crisis after Joseph Smith’s death.
Charity, TOm
 
Given what I know of the character of Brigham Young, and his teachings, in large part rejected (sub rosa) by modern-day Mormons, I categorically reject your assertion. 'Nuff said. :eek: There is no continuity in Mormonism, in contrast to the continuity of the Papacy. BY is a large part of the validation of that statement. Yes, there were rough spots, but none of them like BY.
 
TOmNossor said:
FabiusMaximus, TexanKnight, Kimg901, Lax16, Jerusha, RebeccaJ, and Pablope;

I have read this thread and even the links offered. I have a question that I was hoping you would answer. It seems clear to me that the majority of you believe that Clement of Rome was cognizant of his authority as the successor or Peter and the head of the earthly church. Is that true of any of you?

I fully acknowledge that a man in Rome in the first century will not be able to lead in the way a modern man can. I will also submit that there were surely heretics who rejected the authority of the Pope and ultimately the EOs do as well. But, did Clement know he was the Pope?

Anyone else Catholic or non-Catholic can answer this question if they would like of course.

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Please circle back to here.
 
Jerusha said:
Given what I know of the character of Brigham Young, and his teachings, in large part rejected (sub rosa) by modern-day Mormons, I categorically reject your assertion. 'Nuff said. :eek: There is no continuity in Mormonism, in contrast to the continuity of the Papacy. BY is a large part of the validation of that statement. Yes, there were rough spots, but none of them like BY.
Click to expand...
It seems to me Young stole leadership from Rigdon.
 
Jerusha said:
Given what I know of the character of Brigham Young, and
Click to expand...
his teachings, in large part rejected (sub rosa) by modern-day Mormons, I categorically reject your assertion. 'Nuff said. There is no continuity in Mormonism, in contrast to the continuity of the Papacy. BY is a large part of the validation of that statement. Yes, there were rough spots, but none of them like BY.
So your position is not that BY was not the valid successor of Joseph Smith but rather that his teachings were not such that he can in any way be considered a LDS leader. If Pope Honorius is at least somewhat challenging to align with the Catholic concept of the Papacy then Brigham Young for the same reasons it impossible to align with …
Well, I submit that the “…” would be your Catholic concept of the leadership of the CoJCoLDS.

I think it best to judge Honorius from the Catholic conception of the Papacy as derived at Vatican I and previously.

From a LDS perspective the Pope is no leader of God’s church on earth. Moses - received revelation, Peter - received revelation, the Pope does not even believe he can receive revelation HOW could he possibly be the leader of God’s church on earth? Of course, I am trying to judge the Papacy from a Catholic perspective where I think Honorius and Clement have a better chance.

I am unaware of any informed LDS who think that Brigham Young’s theology is a reason to believe that the CoJCoLDS is apostate because the succession from Joseph Smith was broken by the weird theology of Brigham Young.

I am seeking a CATHOLIC consensus on how to judge Clement (and by association Linus and Cletus and …). Can Newman’s theory of development heft the weight associated with the development of a Peterine succession concept not present in the mind of one of the folks in the Peterine succession? What are your thoughts?
Charity, TOm
 
Not to throw in yet another aspect just for fun, but I can’t stop thinking that the comparison of Pope to Mormon President can’t exactly be done.

Tom, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but you are tying your idea of priesthood authority to the office of the Pope. Which, is not something Catholics do.

If for some catastrophic reason, there were only one bishop in the world left, and if he were not the pope, priesthood authority will still continue when he ordained another as bishop.

The Papacy is an office, but it is not viewed by Catholics as the same type as office as the Mormon view of the Mormon Presidency.

So to the point of this thread, “great apostasy”, and the Mormon belief that a “great apostasy” is state of lacking priesthood authority… I’m having a hard time seeing what the papacy has to do with priesthood authority. Maybe you can clear that up?
 
TOmNossor said:
So your position is not that BY was not the valid successor of Joseph Smith but rather that his teachings were not such that he can in any way be considered a LDS leader. If Pope Honorius is at least somewhat challenging to align with the Catholic concept of the Papacy then Brigham Young for the same reasons it impossible to align with …
Well, I submit that the “…” would be your Catholic concept of the leadership of the CoJCoLDS.

I think it best to judge Honorius from the Catholic conception of the Papacy as derived at Vatican I and previously.

From a LDS perspective the Pope is no leader of God’s church on earth. Moses - received revelation, Peter - received revelation, the Pope does not even believe he can receive revelation HOW could he possibly be the leader of God’s church on earth? Of course, I am trying to judge the Papacy from a Catholic perspective where I think Honorius and Clement have a better chance.

I am unaware of any informed LDS who think that Brigham Young’s theology is a reason to believe that the CoJCoLDS is apostate because the succession from Joseph Smith was broken by the weird theology of Brigham Young.

I am seeking a CATHOLIC consensus on how to judge Clement (and by association Linus and Cletus and …). Can Newman’s theory of development heft the weight associated with the development of a Peterine succession concept not present in the mind of one of the folks in the Peterine succession? What are your thoughts?
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
How about his definitive teaching, as a prophet, that Adam is our God?

How about his definitive teaching as a prophet that blacks are inherently bad?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top