A Mormon- Catholic debate

[SteveVH]

Here’s some definitions of “Apostasy”. I scratch me head and wonder how anyone could find “apostasy” in the early church. It simply does not exist. Is there another definition that I do not understand?

Catholic Catechism: “apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith”

The Free Dictionary: “Abandonment or renunciation of one’s religion or morals”

Merriam-Webster.com: "1: renunciation of a religious faith; 2: abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection

It was a secret apostasy that happened in the second century but no one knew about until 1835 or so. I scratch my head as well. For an entire faith to rise or fall on this one issue, you would think that one could find at least some evidence of it actually occurring.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well shoot, I was looking forward to EllieH’s Mormon synthesis/exegesis. Seems he’s been Whac-A-Mole’d.

 

[truthseeker32]

Mormon: Total disappearing of God despite the Bible’s promises until a man known as a con-artist and treasure hunter has 9 versions of a vision then takes gold plates from a Spaniard…no, an angel…that nobody ever sees except thru spiritual eyes written in a language no one before or since has heard about a people for which no evidence exist who lived ina place no one can find.

TexanKnight, you are being intellectually dishonest. Mormons never claim that there was a complete disappearance of God.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight, you are being intellectually dishonest. Mormons never claim that there was a complete disappearance of God.

I am never dishonest. Perhaps I did not word to your satisfaction…so I will add the word “authority” after “God”

I think readers knew what I meant.

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

I look at it like this. Ill make it simple and not go into great detail

         If you deny there is......

1. ONE GOD ( The most Holy Trinity)
2. That Jesus is fully God and fully man
3. That the bible is the word of God

then you are not a christian thats my two cents

 

[Terminus_Est]

Hi truthseeker,

I am a former Mormon and a convert to Catholicism. The issue of a great apostasy was one of the most important factors that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith. I originally started studying the history of early Christianity and the writings of the church fathers in an attempt to shore up my faltering faith in Mormonism. I thought that if I could find evidence that early Christianity shared similarities with modern day Mormonism and that there were subsequently fundamental changes to early Christian beliefs and practices then it would provide some support for the need for a restoration. What I found instead was the early church was catholic in essential beliefs and practices and that the story of Christianity is one of continuity not discontinuity. Studying the early church seems to be a common theme in many conversion stories to Catholicism.

As I became better acquainted with early Christian writings I also discovered that nearly all Mormon apologetics dealing with early Christianity were misleading at best and outright deceptive at worst. I could respond point by point to the debate link you posted, but frankly I do not have the time. I have already spent several years reading and studying on this issue, unfortunately somewhat to the detriment of my career and my family life. If you willing to put in the effort, I would recommend putting aside the apologetics (Mormon or Catholic) and reading the primary sources themselves. Start with Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin, and Irenaeus (all can be found online). Since Tertullian is referenced in this thread, read his Prescription against Heretics. Even though it was written 1600 years ago, it actually is a good response to typical LDS arguments about a total apostasy. The various gnostic sects of his day had to make similar arguments against the pre-existing catholic tradition if they were going to justify their own novel teachings.

Try reading the Old and New Testaments with a Catholic rather than an LDS mindset. A major theme of both testaments is the enduring nature of God’s covenant with his chosen people, first Israel, then the expansion of that covenant through Christ to the entire world made manifest in the Church as the fulfillment of Israel. God is always faithful to his covenant even if his people sometimes are not. The Church could no more cease to exist on earth than the Jewish people could be entirely exterminated. Jesus is the good shepherd after all, the one would never let the wolves consume his flock. The hireling runs away when the wolves appear but the shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.

I’ll end with a quote from Tertullian’s Prescription against Heretics.

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, [in which] you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; [and there too] you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority [of apostles themselves]. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s, where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even [our] churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus [born] of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water [of baptism], arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus [maintained] she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich, and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although not of our kind; [they come] from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show.”

 

[Xmoe]

I hope that the mormons on this site know better than to walk into this entrapment scheme and then get kicked out for “proselytizing” or for answering questions that are construed as disrespect for Catholicism.

Read the forum rules. No honest and serious mormon-Catholic debate is possible where only one side is allowed to proclaim their beliefs.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I hope that the mormons on this site know better than to walk into this entrapment scheme and then get kicked out for “proselytizing” or for answering questions that are construed as disrespect for Catholicism.

Read the forum rules. No honest and serious mormon-Catholic debate is possible where only one side is allowed to proclaim their beliefs.

Of course it is possible, and there is no entrapment.

Where LDS get into trouble is with their oft-given opinions that are along the lines, “if you had the gift of the Holy Spirit, then you would understand X, but since you don’t, you can’t”.

 

[Terminus_Est]

I hope that the mormons on this site know better than to walk into this entrapment scheme and then get kicked out for “proselytizing” or for answering questions that are construed as disrespect for Catholicism.

Read the forum rules. No honest and serious mormon-Catholic debate is possible where only one side is allowed to proclaim their beliefs.

This site is not meant to be a completely open forum for debate. As the name suggests, its meant to be a place where catholics and non-catholics can come to learn more about catholicism. Part of that is answering common objections to catholic beliefs (like the existence of a great apostasy) and contrasting catholic and non-catholic religions. It is a catholic website designed to promote catholicism, not to provide a platform for LDS missionary work. If it can help Mormons and former Mormons come into the catholic church then the site is fulfilling its purpose. If it leads people away from the catholic faith then it is not. I would suppose that most LDS posters are here with the ultimate goal of bringing people into the LDS church. That’s totally understandable given that they believe their own faith to be true.

Maybe there should be a permanent Catholic/LDS discussion board that is not exclusively associated with either religion and is entirely neutral, but that’s not this board.

 

[truthseeker32]

Hi truthseeker,

I am a former Mormon and a convert to Catholicism…

Hey Terminus Est,

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. If you would be willing to talk please send me a PM.

 

[SteveVH]

Well shoot, I was looking forward to EllieH’s Mormon synthesis/exegesis. Seems he’s been Whac-A-Mole’d.

It is now September 13th. I’m afraid you’re right. By the way, can I borrow the term “Whac-A-Mole’d”? lol.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is now September 13th. I’m afraid you’re right. By the way, can I borrow the term “Whac-A-Mole’d”? lol.

It’s EllieH’s term. he said that is how he feels he is treated in this forum.

 

[EllieH]

?

I think you have sited more than one passage from the Bible. No? If you turn to discussing just one, without reference to the other, then you are confusing me. Since you did state that you bring in more passages than one. Now you’re saying, it’s just the one.

I need you to put your thinking out in typed sentences as I can’t read your mind! What does Jesus saying casting out devils in his name is OK, have anything to do with all the other Bible passages you’ve been referencing?

As for threads on the Mormon apostasy belief. I think we might have had a dozen of those already.

You know, I’ve grown rather fond of the “whack a mole” moniker. If I could change my screen name I think that fits much better.

Yet it is apparent the title aptly describes your interests in the dialogue on this subject of the Mormon Catholic debate. There hasn’t been an ounce of activity of substance since my vacation mandate was imposed. Yet while it may be too late to breathe any light into this “old” thread, I trust that you have all had time to hone your whacking techniques are are now ready for the “mole” to considering popping his head from his burrow.

Let’s see, if we can review the thread point to which I was preparing to respond. There was some misunderstanding of how the scriptures I used for my point all tied together.

I thought then that we could examine them one at a time until we have clarity on each others perspectives. After which we can come back to the original couple of posts and put the entire effort back together.

Let’s start with this one from Mark. Please be specific in where we differ in interpretation and if this develops okay then we can proceed.

Mark 9:38 KJV

38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Catholic Bible:

Mark 9:38

38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”

39 Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.

40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

First let’s summarize this verse. John, one of the 12 Apostles, informs Jesus that he and some of the other Apostles saw a man casting out demons who were not their followers. They told the man that it was forbidden for him to do what he was doing he was not of their group.

Christ on the other hand understands this scenario much better than his apostles and knows that if the man is actually casting out demons he could have no success unless they had true faith in him. Therefore because of this he knows that these men are not against him and can only speak in positive terms of Jesus. In other words they sustain him. They are faithful to him and he accepts their efforts.

The point of this is that we are more often like the Apostles before they learn this principle that like them after. As I have often stated on this forum, the blessing of the testimony of Jesus Christ are just as available for Catholics as they are the LDS.

However I can candidly say that the Catholics on this forum have been more like the Apostles in this state of spiritual immaturity who want to forbid other servants of Christ simply because they are so focused on the fact that these other servants “do not follow us.” What Christ does is he says “us” as in the religious group the Apostles identify themselves with is not the correct focus. His recognition is, while you Apostles may think they do not follow us, I can tell by their actions that they do follow me, and following Jesus Christ is the correct focus. Thus far not a soul has perceived that on this forum thus far. Being so caught up in “us” as in Catholics, you are not seeing that though you may not acknowledge it, Christ may completely acknowledge and accept those beyond the realm of Catholic Church membership. – Something you can’t see as embracing a member of the LDS church.

We’ll see where this goes and then pick up the other verses from Revelations and Matthew and then put it all back together. —Let the whacking begin…

 

[Catholic0104]

Does the Catholic Church have clear evidence of valid apostolic succession? If so, what is it? Mormons seem to claim that even the writings of the early Christians (St. Ignatius, etc.) are invalid because they spoke on their own rather than from authority of the church; they claim that the apostasy had already begun by then…making the teachings misleading.

 

[SteveVH]

Does the Catholic Church have clear evidence of valid apostolic succession? If so, what is it? Mormons seem to claim that even the writings of the early Christians (St. Ignatius, etc.) are invalid because they spoke on their own rather than from authority of the church; they claim that the apostasy had already begun by then…making the teachings misleading.

Yes, the sucession of all bishops is a matter of record. That would include the Bishop of Rome. Becoming a bishop has always been a big deal and is not something that is going to be misplaced or forgotten. It is well documented by the Church.

The Mormon claim of the apostasy varies somewhat depending upon with whom one is speaking but the greatest consensus I have seen is that they believe authority left the Church upon the death of the last Apostle because no other “apostles” had been ordained. They do not believe, for some reason, that the bishops ordained by the Apostles carried this authority. Now, this is the huge problem I have with this scenario. If, indeed, “Apostle” was an office to be continued in the Church and the office of “Bishop” would not be sufficient to pass on the authority of the Apostles, we are to believe that the Apostles, and, ideed, the greater “Church”, were just negligent in making sure to ordain more Apostles. We are to believe that upon the death of the last Apostle that the Church leaders hit themselves in the forehead and said “Guess what? We forgot to ordain more Apostles, now what are we going to do?” This scenario is implausible to the point that it is absurd.

So, by the time St. Ignatius, et al, came on the scene it was too late. Authority had left the Church and so the only authority they could possess would be their own.

What we have to remember is that the Mormons are faced with coming up with a story in the 1830’s and then having to work backwards to make history fit the claim. Forget the fact that there is zero historical evidence of the “Great Apostasy”. Joseph Smith said it was true. They are now forced to contrive stories of how this apostasy came about while ignoring the mountains of historical and even logical evidence against this event ever occurring. And, most important of all, they must ignore or reject the promises made by Christ concerning his Church and its assured survival and triumph.

 

[Catholic0104]

This is what the Mormons say about the loss of authority: “Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed. Because of the persecution, surviving Apostles could not meet to choose and ordain men to replace those who were dead. Eventually, local priesthood leaders were the only ones who had authority to direct the scattered branches of the Church. The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.” (Gospel Principles, ch. 16)

The Mormons claim that all the Apostles needed to be together to agree upon who would take their place. Is this true? Also, they say the Apostles presided over priest/bishops, so if the Apostles died with no one to take their place, then the system is no longer in place because there’s no one to oversee the bishops. They claim that bishops can’t ordain other bishops b/c they don’t have what the Apostles had…laying of the hands, etc. Is this true?

 

[zaffiroborant]

This is what the Mormons say about the loss of authority: “Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed. Because of the persecution, surviving Apostles could not meet to choose and ordain men to replace those who were dead. Eventually, local priesthood leaders were the only ones who had authority to direct the scattered branches of the Church. The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.” (Gospel Principles, ch. 16)

The Mormons claim that all the Apostles needed to be together to agree upon who would take their place. Is this true? Also, they say the Apostles presided over priest/bishops, so if the Apostles died with no one to take their place, then the system is no longer in place because there’s no one to oversee the bishops. They claim that bishops can’t ordain other bishops b/c they don’t have what the Apostles had…laying of the hands, etc. Is this true?

You ask odd questions, for a Catholic.

 

[SteveVH]

The Mormons claim that all the Apostles needed to be together to agree upon who would take their place. Is this true?

No.

Also, they say the Apostles presided over priest/bishops, so if the Apostles died with no one to take their place, then the system is no longer in place because there’s no one to oversee the bishops. They claim that bishops can’t ordain other bishops b/c they don’t have what the Apostles had…laying of the hands, etc. Is this true?

No.

 

[Catholic0104]

This question might be a little basic, but how exactly is authority handed down, and what makes it valid or invalid? Also, where in scripture or tradition can I find this?

 

[twopekinguys]

This question might be a little basic, but how exactly is authority handed down, and what makes it valid or invalid? Also, where in scripture or tradition can I find this?

I have to agree with an earlier poster, you do ask odd questions for a Catholic.

This history of the Church is quite clear on who was Pope, all the way back to Peter.

Did you see when Benedict XVI was installed as the Bishop of Rome (Pope)?

See the succession of Popes here.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, here is more about the Pope.