A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[Horatius]

From this passage…a revelation will not contradict what has been revealed…or will not cause dissent or to establish one’s own religion…so the only conclusion is it is not from God.

The LDS believe that their religion is the original Christianity as revealed by God. For them, Moroni’s message was consistent with the Gospel, and the private revelations of Catholic prophets, like Padre Pio or St. Faustina, are not.

Who ordained JS prior to him going out to establish the LDS? Following this biblical account, one has to be ordained and sent before going out preaching…or establishing one’s own religion.

They also believe you have to be ordained and set out. They believe John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph Smith.

Who approved JS new teachings…physically gave apostolic approval?

If Catholicism is true, then they are new teachings. If Catholicism is false and Mormonism is true, then they are old and true teachings.

These arguments depend on Catholicism being true. You have to establish that first before you can make the case that Mormonism is a new and false religion, and that Moroni was a lying spirit (or a figment of JS’s imagination).

 

[Porknpie]

.These arguments depend on Catholicism being true. You have to establish that first before you can make the case that Mormonism is a new and false religion, and that Moroni was a lying spirit (or a figment of JS’s imagination).

Catholics can do so but the burden is not on the Catholic Church. The burden is on LDS to prove a Great Apostasy occured and that JS didn’t make it all up.

 

[maltmom]

I do not remember being radically drawn to the theology just convinced that if God started a church in 1830 that was still around in 1997, I should be a member.

I found this to be an interesting comment you made. I converted to Catholicism from being Baptist b/c God started the Catholic Church on the day of Pentecost and it is still around in 2012.

 

[Porknpie]

I found this to be an interesting comment you made. I converted to Catholicism from being Baptist b/c God started the Catholic Church on the day of Pentecost and it is still around in 2012.

St Ignatius put it into writing in 110AD so the church was even being called Catholic before then. He was a disciple of St. John…

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Also, there are a lot of “churches” that started in the 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s… the fact that the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and has 1.2B members, Orthodox excluded…add another 200M+… is a great reason to be “convinced” as Tom says.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Porknpie

Heard on EWTN Radio lately Christianity now largest religion in the world. That would encompass RCC, Orthodox, Prots. 2.2 + Billion & growing exponentially in tough, oppressed & persecuted areas: Africa, China etc. Not sure if sects are included. If Pew Research were accurate, they would leave out sects with non-christian doctrines & dogma. The faith explodes, historically and now, when the **blood of the martyrs **has laid the groundwork.

Funny, johnny come lately fabrications of a supposed “great apostasy” comes from mostly home-grown, man-made, opportunistic Americans. The say so from some self promoted “prophet” wanna-be’s like Smith or White or Rutherford (& his take along phonographs). I really marvel at Rutherford’s head stone!!! The power of the pyramid, huh?

Those who have devised their shaky renderings of Scripture & promoted their “truth” goes nowhere in the long run; if it were the "TRUTH’, perhaps they would have spread like wild fire to all corners of the globe and been around since the beginning when it seemed after Our Lord died that all was lost. (The parable of the mustard seed). Have not most American sects been denied access or outlawed out of certain countries?

 

[Horatius]

Regarding the burden of proof – yes, Mormons bear the burden of proof for their claim of a Great Apostasy. But Catholics bear the burden of proof for our claim of an unbroken apostolic succession leading to our bishops today.

The Ignatius quote certainly puts to bed the Mormon urban legend that the word “Catholic” is a medieval coining. But it doesn’t show that when Ignatius used the word “Catholic” that he was referring to the same institution that we belong to.

if it were the "TRUTH’, perhaps they would have spread like wild fire to all corners of the globe

In fact, Mormons believe their religion is spreading like wildfire. And compared to where the church was a few decades ago, they’re right. It wasn’t that long ago that visiting a big eastern city, you might find a handful of Mormon families. Today, there are sizable and thriving Mormon communities throughout the east. Similar thing in Latin America.

and been around since the beginning when it seemed after Our Lord died that all was lost.

From their point of view, it has in fact been around since the beginning. The priesthood authority was absent from the earth for a time, but it continued in heaven.

Have not most American sects been denied access or outlawed out of certain countries?

Wasn’t the Catholic Church denied access to and outlawed in Japan for 250 years?

 

[Stephen168]

Ultimately, either the Catholic authority developed from a seed (originating with Christ and Peter) guided by God’s authority and some form of divine guidance OR the Apostolic authority did not promulgate beyond the early 2nd century. It is the necessity to choose one of these two options (and a few other things that are clear in my warped mind) that leads me to believe that one cannot be a Protestant (at least not a remotely conservative Protestant) “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

One could be a Protestant, there are a few restorationist communities. Also a question comes to mind: Why didn’t Christ just wait until the 19th century and be born in New York? Or why didn’t Christ establish the Mormon Church when he was walking among us?

How would it be possible for the Mormon Church to lose “authority?”

If the Church established by Christ can apostatize, then this question should be easy to answer.

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).

New Testament Apostles did not receive their own personal revelation, which is consistent with Chritianity never claiming to have a prophet who claims to receive revelation for the Church. The history of Mormon “apostles” also brings into to question their role as receivers of revelation. I also don’t know of other restorationist communities, not associated with the latter-day-saint movement, that have “apostles” who claim to receive revelation for their communities.
I just don’t see much historical support for the Mormon paradigm.

 

[KathleenGee]

Tom,

Thank you for your note…too much happening this Christmas season for me to respond as of yet.

Merry Christmas!

 

[SteveVH]

I do not remember being radically drawn to the theology just convinced that if God started a church in 1830 that was still around in 1997, I should be a member.

Really? Even the mainline Protestant communities are older than that. How could this factor in even over LDS theology?

 

[Jerusha]

Really? Even the mainline Protestant communities are older than that. How could this factor in even over LDS theology?

No, he is saying that for him, attraction to a religion based on how tried (and true) it is, has no weight.

 

[SteveVH]

No, he is saying that for him, attraction to a religion based on how tried (and true) it is, has no weight.

Oh, okay, I get it.

 

[Porknpie]

Oh, okay, I get it.

I’m the slower one from Chicago. I don’t get it from his words at all.

 

[lax16]

In fact, Mormons believe their religion is spreading like wildfire. And compared to where the church was a few decades ago, they’re right. It wasn’t that long ago that visiting a big eastern city, you might find a handful of Mormon families. Today, there are sizable and thriving Mormon communities throughout the east. Similar thing in Latin America.

Horatius - It is true it is spreading. However, it seems the numbers are not as large in the U.S. as the LDS church thought.

(edited for length)

OPINIONFebruary 2, 2012Mormon Numbers Not Adding Up Mormonism is no longer one of America’s fastest-growing faiths. What happened?By JOANNA BROOKS

But new data suggests that Mormonism may no longer be (as it is often described) among the fastest-growing faiths in the United States. Instead, American Mormons appear to be settling into the twenty-first century as a maturing minority having an increasingly hard time holding onto younger members.

Official LDS Church statistics for 2011 count 6,144,582 Mormons in the United States in 2011, comprising about 2% of the nation’s population. Church statistics also show a 30% membership increase between 1990 and 2008—a rate double general US population growth.

But recent studies tell a different story—different because whereas LDS Church records count anyone who has ever been baptized, demographers and pollsters count only those who currently identify themselves as Mormon. Those are the parameters for the landmark Trinity College American Religious Identification Survey: a two-decade project that has produced the largest and most accurate database of self-reported religious identification ever compiled, with 100,000 randomly sampled participants. According to Rick Phillips and Ryan Cragun, the authors of a study of Mormons based on ARIS data, self-identified adult Mormons make up not 2% but rather 1.4% of the adult US population—that’s about 4.4 million LDS adults.

Phillips and Cragun also place LDS growth rates not at 30% but at 16%—a rate on par with general US population growth. “Despite a large missionary force and a persistent emphasis on growth,” Phillips and Cragun write, “Mormons are actually treading water with respect to their per capita presence in the U.S.” In fact, additional studies by Cragun and Phillips show that retention rates of young people (young men especially) raised Mormon have dropped substantially in the last decade: from 92.6% in the 1970s–2000s to 64.4% from 2000–2010. Rising rates of disaffiliation go a long way towards explaining the gap between LDS Church records and the ARIS population estimates.

 

[joe370]

Mr Madison proffers that starting in 411 AD, until the fall of the Donatists in 570 AD, in which the Pope of Rome finally dominated the entire Christian Church. Mr. Madion quotes from The Times and Seasons( A Mormon magazine) "The Power and Priesthood after the Son of God… was taken from her in the year 570, and the church fell into the hands of the Pope of Rome (Times and Seasons, 1845)

So, from 570 AD until the era of the Mormons, “he Power and Priesthood after the Son of God” was lost? Come on…

He also puts a quote he attributes to John Wesley from 1756:“What the Donatists were, I do not know. But I suspect they were the real Christians of that age.”

 

[asd72]

Jesus Himself self said He would build his Church upon the rock of Peter and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Jesus describes the Kingdom of heaven as a seed that grows into a tree, leaven that spreads through dough. It is someone that starts small with His Apostles and grows throughout the world.

It is mentioned that many will fall away, particularly when there is the final showdown between good and evil, that ushers in the end of the world, but it never mentions a time when the Church does not exist.

What it comes down to is trusting that God DID build his house upon Peter and the gates of hades have not and will not prevail against it, or…

Trusting in a man who directly contradicts what Jesus Himself promised. That claims the gates of hades HAS prevailed against the Church and it has fallen into error. That claims that they themself received messages from heaven (with no witnesses) and have the authority to contradict the original deposit of faith.

So it comes down to trusting Jesus who is God with His 12 witnesses that testified to seeing His miracles with their own eyes, and testified they saw Jesus raised from the Dead, with 11 of these dying for their testimony.

Or Mohammed with no witnesses.

Or Joseph with his 11 witnesses who needed ‘faith’ to see the alleged gold plates, because although they were physical objects, their testimony involved having spiritual visions of them.

 

[Jerusha]

Perhaps gnosticism or Arianism or one of the other sects were the true Christians of the age? All of these, including the Donatists, were heretical movements; check it out…

BINGO. Read “Restoring the Ancient Church” By Barry Robert Bickmore. And Joseph Smith had Mosheim, which covered the heresies in depth. Much of Mormonism is a form of Gnosticism.

 

[dberrie2000]

Or Joseph with his 11 witnesses who needed ‘faith’ to see the alleged gold plates, because although they were physical objects, their testimony involved having spiritual visions of them.

Just a note here. Only three of the eleven had a vision where an angel revealed the plates, and a heavenly event occurred. The other 8 had an opportunity of physical examination of the plates.

 

[dberrie2000]

Horatius - It is true it is spreading. However, it seems the numbers are not as large in the U.S. as the LDS church thought.

Here is a more recent study

Mormonism Is The Fastest Growing Religion In Half Of U.S. States According To 2012 Religious Congregations And Membership Study

By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service

huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/mormonism-fastest-growing-religion_n_1469566.html

The 2012 Religious Congregations and Membership Study, released here Tuesday (May 1), shows that the mainline Protestants and Catholics who dominated the 20th century are literally losing ground to the rapid rise of Mormons and, increasingly, Muslims.

The study is conducted once every 10 years and can track Americans’ religious affiliation down to the county level, from the largest (Los Angeles County, where Mormons grew 55 percent while Catholics shrank by 7 percent) to the smallest (Loving County, Texas, which is home to 80 people and one nondenominational evangelical church).

Romney’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported 2 million new adherents and new congregations in 295 counties where they didn’t exist a decade ago, making them the fastest-growing group in the U.S.

 

[lax16]

Here is a more recent study

Mormonism Is The Fastest Growing Religion In Half Of U.S. States According To 2012 Religious Congregations And Membership Study

By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service

huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/mormonism-fastest-growing-religion_n_1469566.html

The 2012 Religious Congregations and Membership Study, released here Tuesday (May 1), shows that the mainline Protestants and Catholics who dominated the 20th century are literally losing ground to the rapid rise of Mormons and, increasingly, Muslims.

The study is conducted once every 10 years and can track Americans’ religious affiliation down to the county level, from the largest (Los Angeles County, where Mormons grew 55 percent while Catholics shrank by 7 percent) to the smallest (Loving County, Texas, which is home to 80 people and one nondenominational evangelical church).

Romney’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported 2 million new adherents and new congregations in 295 counties where they didn’t exist a decade ago, making them the fastest-growing group in the U.S.

hi dberrie - I don’t think the studies have to do with which is more recent, but how the data is reported:

But recent studies tell a different story—**different because whereas LDS Church records count anyone who has ever been baptized, demographers and pollsters count only those ****who currently identify themselves as Mormon. **Those are the parameters for the landmark Trinity College American Religious Identification Survey: a two-decade project that has produced the largest and most accurate database of self-reported religious identification ever compiled, with 100,000 randomly sampled participants. According to Rick Phillips and Ryan Cragun, the authors of a study of Mormons based on ARIS data, self-identified adult Mormons make up not 2% but rather 1.4% of the adult US population—that’s about 4.4 million LDS adults.

vs.

**Romney’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ****reported 2 million new adherents **and new congregations in 295 counties where they didn’t exist a decade ago, making them the fastest-growing group in the U.S.

 

[lax16]

I understand. I do not believe other Catholics on this thread have said this (at least not yet), but …
Since the “charism of primacy” (I still don’t like that too much) is associated with the office of the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of Peter, it is not absolutely necessary for the Bishop of Rome to have an understanding of his primacy. Over time as the Holy Spirit works in His Church, the Bishop of Rome and the rest of the church comes to realize what the deposit of faith was from the Apostles in the beginning. This is a valid development of the truths from the Apostles that becomes DEFINED not invented.

I think the above is a weight to be lifted by Newman’s theory. It is in my observation a weight typically denied by Catholics. This is certainly due in part to the idea that 1st Clement is obviously an exercise of Papal Authority. I will try to get to why I think it was not eventually.

Newman’s theory is predicated upon the idea that you can see development throughout Catholic history. When people tell me that the pre-Nicene orthodoxy was not subordinationalism or that Linus/Cletus/Clement were monoepiscopal Bishops of Rome who exercised primacy (in a way congruent with the times and level of persecution present) I hear,
“If that which I just claimed (insert Trinity non-develop or Papacy non-develop) is not true, Catholicism is not true.”
So, I try to demonstrate why the non-develop position is wrong.

In another world, the Maxim of St Vincent de Lerins could simplistically explain the Christian (Catholic) Church. St. John the Apostle said that Christ was co-equal with God the Father and that they were one substance/essence or … St. Peter explained his primacy and we have a document from Clement that talks about how he was the head of God’s church on earth. Even Ignatius in Antioch spoke about both of these truths. In this world, a man like Joseph Smith claiming that somehow there was an Apostasy would take a whole different trajectory.

But we do not live in that world. Either the Catholic Church is a valid development of the apostolic faith or it is not. The Maxim of St. Vincent does not explain the teachings of the Catholic Church in this world.

I hope that answers what I am saying.
Charity, TOm

Hi TOm - I hope you had a Merry Christmas!

I have read the chapter On the Probability of a Developing Authority in Christianity. Obviously, Newman has some strong opinions and insights that have been used to look at authority in a different way.

The Catholic Church is filled with many different personalities and intellects - and they are made saints! - so if the Catholic Church is good enough for Newman…what is the problem?