A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[Stephen168]

It is interesting, though, that Mormon teaching used to fix a date of 570 AD; that’s not something I remember being taught when I was a member.

I don’t think it has been taught in a very long time due to the discovery that Christian teaching is much older than 570, so Mormonism had to change the “prophesy.” 311 was very popular at one time but that has turned out to be too late. Now it seems to be 100ad. Now they are free to make up whatever they want.

 

[jrtrent]

Repeating the denial does not make the denial true. Repeating the denial does not make the denial true. You have not found fault with Christian reasoning to support your belief that there can be an apostasy and Christ not be a liar. I’m surprised you don’t see the hypocrisy

I believe I have demonstrated in this thread, from Mormon and other sources, that it is possible to interpret Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 in ways that do not include a promise that the church would never apostasize. I’m not saying that that interpretation is necessarily true and that the one that does see that promise is false, but those who don’t see that promise in the scriptures are not calling Christ a liar because they see no promise Christ has broken. I’m surprised that this is so difficult a concept to grasp.

So what kind of Apostasy do you believe in and when did it happen?

I somehow gave the wrong link to a quote in my previous post, so here is another quote from that same article:

“Latter-day Saint theology asserts that the church of the Savior and his Apostles in the Old World came to an end within a century after its formation. The doctrines which its inspired leaders taught were corrupted and changed by others not of similar inspiration, the authority to act in God’s name was taken from the earth, and none of the Christian systems that existed after those developments, though they did some good things, enjoyed divine endorsement as the Lord’s own church.” lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy

Earlier in this thread I quoted Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks:

“We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. We have only to contrast the lesser light that exists among peoples unfamiliar with the names of God and Jesus Christ to realize the great contribution made by Christian teachers through the ages. We honor them as servants of God.”

Those quotes are quite a softening from the declaration made by Joseph Smith that “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt. . .” There are Protestant writers who are not much less damning in their descriptions of the corruption of the early church, though they will typically hold the position that there always remained at least small pockets of true believers.

I don’t believe that the church came to an end within a century of its founding, but I do believe that from its earliest days error would creep in and need to be corrected, and that with the death of the last apostle the only corrective we have is the scriptures. I also believe, and I know I’m repeating myself, what the Smith Bible dictionary said, “. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work.”

So I don’t see a “one, true church” that has everything right, but I do agree with Dallin Oaks “that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities,” and,like Oaks, I “honor them as servants of God,” even if I don’t agree with everything they teach.

My opinion is that the differences between denominations are not terribly important. I’m of the conviction that what matters is the gospel. It has been phrased in many different ways, but here’s one I like, “We are accountable to the God who created us. We have sinned against that God and will be judged. But God has acted in Jesus Christ to save us, and we take hold of that salvation by repentance from sin and faith in Jesus.” whatisthegospel.org.uk/gospelbasics.html

A church that preaches the gospel is a “true” church, and its adherents will be saved. As Loraine Boettner put it, “all who accept Christ as their personal Saviour, all who obey and worship Him as Lord and Master, will be saved, regardless of what church they belong to.” I don’t believe in a Great Apostasy, despite error and differences in belief, because I believe the gospel has continued to be preached and that sinners have continued to be saved.

 

[TexanKnight]

I believe I have demonstrated in this thread, from Mormon and other sources, that it is possible to interpret Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 in ways that do not include a promise that the church would never apostasize. I’m not saying that that interpretation is necessarily true and that the one that does see that promise is false, but those who don’t see that promise in the scriptures are not calling Christ a liar because they see no promise Christ has broken. I’m surprised that this is so difficult a concept to grasp.

Ah…so YOU believe in interpreting Scriptures to suit your needs? That is forbidden according to Peter.

I somehow gave the wrong link to a quote in my previous post, so here is another quote from that same article:

“Latter-day Saint theology asserts that the church of the Savior and his Apostles in the Old World came to an end within a century after its formation. The doctrines which its inspired leaders taught were corrupted and changed by others not of similar inspiration, the authority to act in God’s name was taken from the earth, and none of the Christian systems that existed after those developments, though they did some good things, enjoyed divine endorsement as the Lord’s own church.” lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy

Yes…they HAVE to make Jesus weak and dishonest in order to exist. They fail, however, to be believable that authority was taken when, by their own teaching, The Apostle John and the three Nephites, who HAD THE AUTHORITY, walked the earth during that time.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormons here last year or so said the apostasy happened with the death of the last apostle.

Then along this same time period, this new concept is coming out that Restorationists and anti-Catholic fundamentalists are embracing, that the apostasy began with the temporal reign of Constantine, in the 300’s, other say it began with the Nicene Creed.

Now the most contemporary Mormons, that include former Catholics, no longer label the Catholic Church as the epicenter of abomination…they are pulling back from the apostasy idea.

It is now changing totally…that the early Catholic Church miraculously affirmed deification of Joseph Smith, and Tom Nossor here brought to light a number of early church fathers who he thinks prove the Mormon position. He likewise does not consider the Catholic Church an abomination, but considers himself part of the true church of this branch of Mormonism.

So…for people to want to debate Mormons with this background and insight, it will be more difficult because you have to define what it means as a Catholic to be an adopted son and daughter in context of the new life in Christ and through the Word of God, the sacraments, and seeing the Church as the beginning of the New Jerusalem.

 

[Stephen168]

I believe I have demonstrated in this thread, from Mormon and other sources, that it is possible to interpret Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 in ways that do not include a promise that the church would never apostasize. I’m not saying that that interpretation is necessarily true and that the one that does see that promise is false, but those who don’t see that promise in the scriptures are not calling Christ a liar because they see no promise Christ has broken. I’m surprised that this is so difficult a concept to grasp.

I understand what you claim but as a Mormon you have to change the definition of words and use them as they had never been used before. As Christians, we use the meaning of the text as it has been understood since before the Catholic Church added it to the Bible. So as Christians we understand the apostasy as Christ being a liar.

I don’t believe that the church came to an end within a century of its founding, but I do believe that from its earliest days error would creep in and need to be corrected, and that with the death of the last apostle the only corrective we have is the scriptures.

That is a very Mormon view. Joseph Smith made up stuff which disagrees with the Catholic Church. Joseph Smith is right, so there must have been an apostasy. Can you list a few errors that have crept in? Do you believe there are uniquely Mormon teaches which have been lost?

 

[Porknpie]

That is a very Mormon view. Joseph Smith made up stuff which disagrees with the Catholic Church. Joseph Smith is right, so there must have been an apostasy. Can you list a few errors that have crept in? Do you believe there are uniquely Mormon teaches which have been lost?

Stephen, this could be brilliant…the birth of a new thread subject ?

A listing of the :

Errors of the Catholic Church…so say Mormons

verses

Errors of Joseph Smith & LDS…so say Catholics

Do you have pen and paper ready?

 

[jrtrent]

As Christians, we use the meaning of the text as it has been understood since before the Catholic Church added it to the Bible. So as Christians we understand the apostasy as Christ being a liar.

No, not as Christians, but as Roman Catholics–as has been pointed out in this thread, many Christian groups other than Mormons believe in the apostasy of the church.

What I see in your responses is either an inability to see and understand the world from a perspective other than your own, or a simple delight in making blatantly disrespectful characterizations of other people’s faith.

That is a very Mormon view.

I don’t see how. Unlike Mormons, I said I don’t believe the church came to an end within a century of its founding (in fact, I’ve said I don’t believe in a great apostasy at all, either the Mormon or Protestant treatments of that idea), nor do I think Mormons would accept the concept of the Bible being a corrective for erroneous teaching, but instead believe that a restoration of the church was needed, the one carried out by Joseph Smith.

Can you list a few errors that have crept in? Do you believe there are uniquely Mormon teaches which have been lost?

For more specifics on Mormon belief on the great apostasy, Talmage’s work is available to read online for free at this site: gutenberg.org/ebooks/35514

The LDS.org website has several short articles on the subject, beginning with this introduction:

“When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.” lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=619439b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I trust you will find the answers to your questions using these sources.

 

[TexanKnight]

No, not as Christians, but as Roman Catholics–as has been pointed out in this thread, many Christian groups other than Mormons believe in the apostasy of the church.

Many people believe in the Easter Bunny. That does not make it true.

What I see in your responses is either an inability to see and understand the world from a perspective other than your own, or a simple delight in making blatantly disrespectful characterizations of other people’s faith.

You are not the first person to call truth disrespectful

For more specifics on Mormon belief on the great apostasy, Talmage’s work is available to read online for free at this site: gutenberg.org/ebooks/35514

I have read the book more than once. It is as flawed as the idea of an Apostasy. It twists facts and distorts truth in an effort to justify a false idea.

 

[Porknpie]

nor do I think Mormons would accept the concept of the Bible being a corrective for erroneous teaching, but instead believe that a restoration of the church was needed, the one carried out by Joseph Smith.

Mormons reject the bible as being inerrant and inspired…correct? This of course becomes a problem when reading 2 Timothy.

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness

For more specifics on Mormon belief on the great apostasy, Talmage’s work is available to read online for free at this site: gutenberg.org/ebooks/35514

I trust you will find the answers to your questions using these sources.

JR, all I have to read is below…and immediately reject everything else. The American Indians are from Asia and not the Middle East as genetic science has shown.

1. Nephites and Lamanites. The progenitors of the Nephite nation "were led from Jerusalem 600 B. C., by Lehi, a Jewish prophet of the tribe of Manasseh. His immediate family, at the time of their departure from Jerusalem, comprised his wife Sariah, and their sons Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi; at a later stage of the history, daughters are mentioned, but whether any of these were born before the family exodus we are not told. Beside his own family, the colony of Lehi included Zoram and Ishmael, the latter an Israelite of the tribe of Ephraim. Ishmael, with his family, joined Lehi in the wilderness; and his descendants were numbered with the nation of whom we are speaking. The company journeyed somewhat east of south, keeping near the borders of the Red Sea; then changing their course to the eastward, crossed the peninsula of Arabia; and there, on the shores of the Arabian Sea, built and provisioned a vessel in which they committed themselves to Divine care upon the waters. Their voyage carried them eastward across the Indian Ocean, then over the south Pacific Ocean to the western coast of South America, whereon they landed (590 B. C.) * * * The people established themselves on what to them was the land of promise; many children were born, and in the course of a few generations a numerous posterity held possession of the land. After the death of Lehi, a division occurred, some of the people accepting as their leader Nephi, who had been duly appointed to the prophetic office; while the rest proclaimed Laman, the eldest of Lehi’s sons, as their chief. Henceforth the divided people were known as Nephites and Lamanites respectively. At times they observed toward each other fairly friendly relations; but generally they were opposed, the Lamanites manifesting implacable hatred and hostility toward their Nephite kindred. The Nephites advanced in the arts of civilization, built large cities, and established prosperous commonwealths; yet they often fell into transgression; and the Lord chastened them by making their foes victorious. They spread northward, occupying the northern part of South America; then, crossing the Isthmus, they extended their domain over the southern, central, and eastern portions of what is now the United States of America. The Lamanites, while increasing in numbers, fell under the curse of darkness; they became dark in skin and benighted in spirit, forgot the God of their fathers, lived a wild nomadic life, and degenerated into the fallen state in which the American Indians,—their lineal descendants,—were found by those who re-discovered the western continent in later times." (The Author, “Articles of Faith,” Lect. 14:7, 8.)

A great apostasy is likewise… “Bogus”…defined as…

: not genuine : counterfeit, sham
— bo·gus·ly adverb
— bo·gus·ness noun

Just like Joseph Smith finding inground water with a rock, buried treasure with a rock and selling medicinal oil to cure disease.

All of the above are … “bogus”

Mormons need to reject all things Bogus and come to the Truth in Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

No, not as Christians, but as Roman Catholics–as has been pointed out in this thread, many Christian groups other than Mormons believe in the apostasy of the church.

What I see in your responses is either an inability to see and understand the world from a perspective other than your own, or a simple delight in making blatantly disrespectful characterizations of other people’s faith.

Mormons are not Christians. As I have said, Mormons have to make up stuff to justify an apostasy. When you put the stuff together and use the reason God gave us, one of the conclusions is that Mormons are calling Christ a liar. I also have said I know Mormons do not teach that Christ is a liar. And that is one of the few hypocrisies I know of in Mormon teaching, abortion and baptism are two others.

I don’t see how.

Because you disagree with Catholic teaching and blame it on:

…I do believe that from its earliest days error would creep in and need to be corrected, and that with the death of the last apostle the only corrective we have is the scriptures.

Can you list a few errors that have crept in?

I trust you will find the answers to your questions using these sources.

No, because I asked what YOU believe. That would require you to answer the question.

You claim to to be a Lutheran/Anglican who believes “from its earliest days error would creep in.” I would like to know what errors crept in “from the earliest days” that Catholics accept and you reject.

 

[Porknpie]

You claim to to be a Lutheran/Anglican who believes “from its earliest days error would creep in.” I would like to know what errors crept in “from the earliest days” that Catholics accept and you reject.

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormons are not Christians. As I have said, Mormons have to make up stuff to justify an apostasy. When you put the stuff together and use the reason God gave us, one of the conclusions is that Mormons are calling Christ a liar. I also have said I know Mormons do not teach that Christ is a liar. And that is one of the few hypocrisies I know of in Mormon teaching, abortion and baptism are two others.

Because you disagree with Catholic teaching and blame it on:

No, because I asked what YOU believe. That would require you to answer the question.

You claim to to be a Lutheran/Anglican who believes “from its earliest days error would creep in.” I would like to know what errors crept in “from the earliest days” that Catholics accept and you reject.

and I would like to know when “the earliest days” started

 

[jrtrent]

No, because I asked what YOU believe. That would require you to answer the question.

You claim to to be a Lutheran/Anglican who believes “from its earliest days error would creep in.” I would like to know what errors crept in “from the earliest days” that Catholics accept and you reject.

What I wrote was:

“I don’t believe that the church came to an end within a century of its founding, but I do believe that from its earliest days error would creep in and need to be corrected, and that with the death of the last apostle the only corrective we have is the scriptures.”

I also wrote:

“My opinion is that the differences between denominations are not terribly important. . . A church that preaches the gospel is a “true” church, and its adherents will be saved. As Loraine Boettner put it, “all who accept Christ as their personal Saviour, all who obey and worship Him as Lord and Master, will be saved, regardless of what church they belong to.” I don’t believe in a Great Apostasy, despite error and differences in belief, because I believe the gospel has continued to be preached and that sinners have continued to be saved.”

That error was creeping into the church even from its earliest days is well attested to by scripture itself, and much in the New Testament was written to combat error. The Mormon articles I referred you to do a good job of pointing some of those out, so I see no need to paste them all here. Here are some links:

lds.org/ensign/1988/10/whither-the-early-church
lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy
lds.org/ensign/1995/05/apostasy-and-restoration
lds.org/ensign/1993/11/from-the-beginning

That error continues to this day is well attested to by the various and contradictory doctrines taught by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, various Protestant denominations, and what some consider non-Christian sects such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and more. I don’t claim to know which of the competing doctrinal positions are true, if any, and which aren’t, but am content to believe, with Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks, that “most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities.”

I believe that the scriptures are my only guide to the truth, and that their light on the truth is not so exacting that I can discern whether infant baptism is or isn’t proper, whether Arminius or Calvin was right about predestination, whether Luther or Zwingli was right about the presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper, whether Mary was ever-virgin or not, and many other similar disputes. I accept the common Protestant declaration that, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” So what I can’t know with certainty from scripture is not something I’m going to call someone a heretic over, even if it is fun to dialogue with others on their points of view on these things. What I think we can all agree on, even some of those you call non-Christian, is that:

“We are accountable to the God who created us. We have sinned against that God and will be judged. But God has acted in Jesus Christ to save us, and we take hold of that salvation by repentance from sin and faith in Jesus.” whatisthegospel.org.uk/gospelbasics.html

 

[TexanKnight]

What I wrote was:

“I don’t believe that the church came to an end within a century of its founding, but I do believe that from its earliest days error would creep in and need to be corrected, and that with the death of the last apostle the only corrective we have is the scriptures.”

I also wrote:

“My opinion is that the differences between denominations are not terribly important. . . A church that preaches the gospel is a “true” church, and its adherents will be saved. As Loraine Boettner put it, “all who accept Christ as their personal Saviour, all who obey and worship Him as Lord and Master, will be saved, regardless of what church they belong to.” I don’t believe in a Great Apostasy, despite error and differences in belief, because I believe the gospel has continued to be preached and that sinners have continued to be saved.”

That error was creeping into the church even from its earliest days is well attested to by scripture itself, and much in the New Testament was written to combat error. The Mormon articles I referred you to do a good job of pointing some of those out, so I see no need to paste them all here. Here are some links:

lds.org/ensign/1988/10/whither-the-early-church
lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy
lds.org/ensign/1995/05/apostasy-and-restoration
lds.org/ensign/1993/11/from-the-beginning

That error continues to this day is well attested to by the various and contradictory doctrines taught by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, various Protestant denominations, and what some consider non-Christian sects such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and more. I don’t claim to know which of the competing doctrinal positions are true, if any, and which aren’t, but am content to believe, with Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks, that “most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities.”

I believe that the scriptures are my only guide to the truth, and that their light on the truth is not so exacting that I can discern whether infant baptism is or isn’t proper, whether Arminius or Calvin was right about predestination, whether Luther or Zwingli was right about the presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper, whether Mary was ever-virgin or not, and many other similar disputes. I accept the common Protestant declaration that, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” So what I can’t know with certainty from scripture is not something I’m going to call someone a heretic over, even if it is fun to dialogue with others on their points of view on these things. What I think we can all agree on, even some of those you call non-Christian, is that:

“We are accountable to the God who created us. We have sinned against that God and will be judged. But God has acted in Jesus Christ to save us, and we take hold of that salvation by repentance from sin and faith in Jesus.” whatisthegospel.org.uk/gospelbasics.html

still dodging the questions

 

[jrtrent]

still dodging the questions

The question was, “I would like to know what errors crept in “from the earliest days” that Catholics accept and you reject.” I don’t have a list to give, and in my response I explained why. That’s not a dodge, just an honest confession of where I’m at.

 

[TexanKnight]

The question was, “I would like to know what errors crept in “from the earliest days” that Catholics accept and you reject.” I don’t have a list to give, and in my response I explained why. That’s not a dodge, just an honest confession of where I’m at.

you were also asked when “the earliest days” started.

So, you have no idea when it started, or what the errors are…but you are darned sure there were errors that started.

Seems like a precarious position to hold…

 

[Stephen168]

The question was, “I would like to know what errors crept in “from the earliest days” that Catholics accept and you reject.” I don’t have a list to give, and in my response I explained why. That’s not a dodge, just an honest confession of where I’m at.

Unless you are in fact Mormon it is a dodge. You defer to Mormonism to explain your belief, as if they are one in the same. Are you then claiming the Mormons and Lutheran/Anglicans have the same list of errors? Is infant baptism an error that crept in? Creation ex nihilio?

What I wrote was:
“I don’t believe that the church came to an end within a century of its founding, but I do believe that from its earliest days error would creep in and need to be corrected, and that with the death of the last apostle the only corrective we have is the scriptures.”

My opinion is that the differences between denominations are not terribly important. . . A church that preaches** the gospel** is a “true” church, and its adherents will be saved

I don’t claim to know which of the competing doctrinal positions are true, if any, and which aren’t,

To summarize you believe errors crept in but you don’t know what they are. How do you know what the Gospel is? How do you know which books are scripture?

 

[lax16]

I keep seeing these ideas asserted, but they are from a particular interpretive viewpoint, one not shared by Mormons and others who believe the church fell into apostasy. You take verses like Matthew 16:18 and 28:20 and extract from them a promise by Christ that the church would not apostasize, but that is not an interpretation shared by all, and particularly not by Mormons. When you start from a false premise, it is not surprising that you end up with a false conclusion–that Mormons call Christ a liar. And it doesn’t even matter if what I quoted from you is true; Mormons don’t believe that way, so their belief that the church apostasized has nothing to do with a perceived broken promise, a promise that to them does not exist.

Mormon leaders and apologists are lying, and have been lying, about the Apostasy, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc.
Does the average Mormon know this? No.

They are not allowed to read anything not approved by the LDS church, therefore, how can they know?

All I’m getting at is that it’s perfectly valid for you to say, based on whatever Biblical or Church teachings you want to point to, that the Church could not apostasize. Based on that, you can then state that you disagree with the Mormon church’s teaching of a great apostasy and subsequent need for restoration. That’s a legitimate difference in doctrinal belief. You do not need to say that Mormons call Jesus a liar–that’s an offensive allegation that is simply untrue.

I believe that it is valid to say that people will believe what they have been told about religion, no matter what religion it is.
But for the Mormons to continue to spread their message around the world after being presented with facts that put Joseph Smith in a *very *negative light (a fact kept from most Mormons) and facts that shed great doubt on the Book of Mormon (presented to the highest Mormon authorities by B.H. Roberts and ignored) it is hard to say they (the hierarchy and apologists) do not know they are lying to people. Or, at the very least, might be lying to people.

Certainly, the average Mormon is not aware that the interpretations they are being fed are twisted around. You presented the Mormon definition of “aeon” that was wrong - that tells me that once again words are spun to trick people into believing the Mormon interpretation of the Bible.

 

[KathleenGee]

jrtrent…I think what is lacking in these observations is the inability to see the working of the Holy Spirit universally in those consecrated in spirit and truth, the ecclesiastics and early church fathers.

Yes, you are most correct that this idea of the Great Apostasy in early times is not just a concept held by Mormons but also other Restorationists of the 19th century – here in America, totally divorced from its Western Christian roots.

At the time of Constantine, there was no Latin or Orthodox Church but one universal or Katholic (Greek) church, and the division is continuing today based on pride, culture, geography, language, different anthropological and historical developments.

Those who created the Restorationist belief had little contact with Catholics in America, with the exception of the Baptists. There is a branch of Baptists that is also having the same problem as the Mormons, being unable to define when the Apostasy began.

You also have to recognize that Christ did not build the Church on air, on belief that is not incarnated into flesh.

Otherwise, if you reduce faith to an ongoing oppositional view that trusts nobody with the faith except the Apostles or reduce faith to personal interpretation, you are reducing faith to intellectual symbol, not concrete. The interpretation of Scripture is held by the Church alone, the sacraments are concrete.

If you then arbitrate interpretation of Scripture, of faith to another form, your interpreter in practice is subjective relativism, the ‘tyranny’ of today’s manner of discernment defined by Pope Benedict.

By 100 AD, the books of the Bible had been chosen for public revelation with the exception of the Book of Hebrews that took 200 years to affirm through the Church, we already had the Mass practiced throughout the entire Christian world, the Memorial --‘Do this in memory of Me’ as Christ’s chosen form of worship in the liturgy – not our idea of worship, we had the episcopal form of authority set up vs the conciliar model (on the low side could be akin to group dynamics and subject to peer pressure as we have seen in modern times in some episcopal councils, and also by 100 AD, the Apostles Creed that defines our beliefs.

The Mass was said in the same spirit, tone, and structure as the Mass today, and the same Apostles Creed is recited at daily Mass. We have the Eucharist present to us for daily sustenance in the Daily Sacrifice of the Mass.

The priest follows the rubrics of the Mass, even down to hand gestures, of how to say the Mass so that all the elements catechize us in the truth of Jesus Christ. He preaches not his own interpretation, but that of the Apostles who were the only faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ, this endured for 2,000 years by the Holy Spirit, and grounded in Christ Who is the life of the Church.

If you focus on men,you will see disjointed thoughts and actions down through the ages of the universal Church. If you look at the Church in faith in Jesus Christ and the Church as His bride, you will then see the same history as you did with the Jews…times they were faithful, times they fell away, but Christ always calling back His Bride to forgive, purify and restore.

The Church is a human institution. You do not see the Church as the source of salvation. Only God Saves. The Church nourishes us in Christ and the Eucharist and sacraments making us more in union in Christ as we age in this life. Christ said there would be the chaff with the wheat.

The great challenge of faith is not to take scandal at His ministers, for it is Christ Who ministers through them. His Church goes on irregardless of clergy sins. He is the pruner Who cuts off bad trees that do not bear good fruit. And He also goes out to choose good trees and place on good soil. Christ does not create bad soil. The Churches does not create bad soul. It is all about individual choice of the believer be he a pope a bishop, a priest or lay.

You focus on scandal, you end up in false judgment and bring judgement on yourself if you take your eyes off of Christ and look at man and interpret sacred mysteries with the limitations of man, loosing the vision and transcendence of faith that goes beyond individual popes and priests.

Catholics do not focus their faith on men. We focus on Christ. We can recognize Christ as the Life Blood of the Church, we recognize Him at work in His shepherds, and we can quickly identify those who are not truly representing Him. But our calling is not to judge or condemn them but to do penance and pray for our ministers, which many Catholic lay have not done as they should.

If I can find the link, I will share with you an essay on this issue when did the apostasy start and the Restorationists and their on going problems of trying to find the time.

The first 300 years of Christianity were full of martyrs. And now in the East and other parts of the world in this last century we are witnessing a new age of martyrdom, 2000 years later, and yes, there are many protestants within them. But i do not think these martyrs are hung up on Restoration or apostasy but were totally centered on Christ and His new life.

 

[jrtrent]

you were also asked when “the earliest days” started.

I did at least answer that question, but maybe you didn’t read it. The first of the articles I linked to mentioned Paul’s letter to the Galatians, saying, “In one letter we read that, within two or three years after his mission to central Asia Minor, many Christians there had perverted the gospel. (See Gal. 1:6–12; Gal. 3:1–5.)” Since Galatians is believed to have been written between 48 and 52 AD, the “earliest days” would have been at least that early.