A paradox in "The Apostasy"

[Melchior_1]

Here’s an answer suitable for Catholics and Latter-day Saints!! It’s hard to know exactly when this succession stopped, but we do not have any written record of subsequent bishops claiming to be successors to the apostles.

In the book “From Apostles to Bishops” by a Catholic author, it is stated…

“No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)

I hope this helps…

To add to what JMM1957 posted regarding what Clement said, there’s also the following posts;

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. …] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. …] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

“Hegesippus (180?) and Irenaeus (180) introduce explicitly the idea of the bishop’s succession in office as a guarantee of the truth of what he preached in that it could be traced back to the apostles and they produced succession lists to back this up”

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate” (Irenaeus)

“the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter” (Eusebius)

It’s clear through multiple sources that the early Church had a mechanism for establishing leadership, otherwise none of the above quotes (in addition to Clement’s) would have ever been uttered. Further, it’s also clear in the New testament that Paul places people in charge of certain areas (Timothy, Titus) whom have authority.

You didn’t address if Matthias wielded the same authority as the original Apostles. Did Matthias have the same authority?

Of interest is your statement “it’s hard to know exactly when this succession stopped” - this is very, very critical. There needs to be a definitive start-point to this in order for any Great Apostasy theory to have any legs. At some point there needs to be a break, a flashpoint. So please inform us of when this flashpoint was, when things ceased.

 

[Melchior_1]

Neither Ignatius nor Clement stated that they were a successor.

Is there anyone who wrote a book in the Bible who said “this is a book in the Bible. I am a Scripture writer. My writings are divinely inspired and I am being guided by the Holy Spirit” (John maybe? Any other writer in the Bible?). Using the same logic you just did, clearly that means we need to question the very Bible itself and it’s contents.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sullivan’s book is about the development of the Episcopacy as we know it today. In his theological conclusion, he specifically makes the point that just as the books that are included in the Bible were a divinely inspired decision, so too were the developments of the Episcopacy.

This is where LDS arguments fail, often, as quotes from early Christians and modern theologians are prooftexted. Removed from m their context and a Mormon spin placed on the quotes. The case is always, it comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Either you have faith that Jesus did not leave Christian faithful orphaned, as He said He would not and thus the Church has always been guided b the Holy Spirit. Or you have faith that there is “something” that was catastrophic enough to cause Jesus to abandon the Christian faithful. Mormons have faith in failure because it is required to believe the claims of Jospeh Smith. It really comes down to “Joseph Smith said so and I believe him”.

 

[JMM1957]

Of interest is your statement “it’s hard to know exactly when this succession stopped” - this is very, very critical. There needs to be a definitive start-point to this in order for any Great Apostasy theory to have any legs. At some point there needs to be a break, a flashpoint. So please inform us of when this flashpoint was, when things ceased.

Exactly. For a “restored” church (LDS) to be founded, it should have been founded on the solid facts of a Great Apostasy that occurred, one supported by non-disputable ancient writings from the time period, not speculation like, “its hard to know exactly when this succession stopped”. If it’s hard to know that, then how do you know for certain it happened at all. It’s ridiculous, all the non-Catholic churches who say an apostasy happened to the CC, never can tell you when it happened. But new churches are built on this same speculation every day, and people blindly follow them.

 

[JMM1957]

Something else I forgot to add to the last post. We have thousands and thousands of ancient writings from the first century, and more from every century thereafter, and none of them speak of a complete apostasy in the Church Jesus established. Sure, there was always people inside the Church and outside the Church trying to promote false teachings and steer the true believers away from the truth, but never was the whole Church corrupted into apostasy. Matthew 16:18.

 

[gazelam]

Clement did say this:

“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]).

There are more statements like this from other ECF’s, do you need me to post more? Really, the Bible itself shows Apostolic Succession pretty clearly even without statements from the ECF’s.

The Clement quote goes on to say…

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. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Clement is reprimanding the Corinthians for apostate behavior - that of dismissing righteous leaders.

 

[gazelam]

It’s clear through multiple sources that the early Church had a mechanism for establishing leadership, otherwise none of the above quotes (in addition to Clement’s) would have ever been uttered. Further, it’s also clear in the New testament that Paul places people in charge of certain areas (Timothy, Titus) whom have authority.

I agree with you on this point.

You didn’t address if Matthias wielded the same authority as the original Apostles. Did Matthias have the same authority?

Matthias most definitely had the same authority as the other apostles.

Of interest is your statement “it’s hard to know exactly when this succession stopped” - this is very, very critical. There needs to be a definitive start-point to this in order for any Great Apostasy theory to have any legs. At some point there needs to be a break, a flashpoint. So please inform us of when this flashpoint was, when things ceased.

No, there does not need to be a definitive start-point to justify the Great Apostasy.

There is plenty of evidence that things went awry early on.

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

Eusebius referring to his own day wrote:

*We [sank] into negligence and sloth, One in being and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, on the point of taking up arms against each other, and where is sailing each other with words as with darts and Spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity; … we added one wickedness in misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strides, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other. * (Eusebius, ecclesiastical history, 8:318)

Tertullian observed “The gospel was wrong we preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized… so many priestly functions, so many ministries were wrongly executed.” (The Ante-Niceness Fathers, 3:256)

Cyril of Jerusalem stated…
Thus wrote Paul, and now is the falling away. For men have fallen away from the right faith; and some preach the identity of the Son with the Father, and others dare say that Christ was brought into being out of nothing. And formally the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears. It is a plausible discourse? All listen to it gladly. Is it a word of correction? All turn away from it. Most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This therefore is the falling away, and the enemy is soon to be looked for… (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15:9, in NPNF Series 2, 7:106-107)

Later Pope Adrian VI stated in 1522:
“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think everyone, regardless if they feel if there’s a Great Apostasy or not, believes that the twelve Apostles had the proper authority.

If the answer is “yes, Matthias had the same authority”, it presents a quandary. We clearly see that the Apostles had a mechanism in place for replacing one whom passes away. This mechanism would be repeated every time one of them died. So, at which point did the mechanism no longer work? At what point did the replacements for the original twelve no longer have the same authority? Is it after John died, the next series of replacements would no longer have the authority?

If the answer is “no, Matthias did not have the same authority”, it calls into question the methods and methodologies of the original Apostles, especially those they added to their ranks and chose to be their proteges.

Acts is clear and shows in chapter one that this will not go on, it clearly states the test for someone to replace on of the twelve.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Authority was granted for a limited group for a limited time.

 

[adamhovey1988]

You are using this quote to help defend your belief in a Great Apostasy? There are a lot of things we wish we had spelled out better in ancient records, not just early church information. The fact is, when the successors to the first Apostles lived, probably the last thing they were thinking of is making sure us here in the year 2017 had a complete written record of Apostolic succession connected to every one of the twelve Apostles. But we do have the list of Popes going back to Peter, how do you think we got that? Or, maybe you question that too.

I can attest to this, I got my niece a Douay Rheims Bible for Christmas and it lists Peter to Benedict XVI (it was published before Pope Francis was Pope), in the back of it.

 

[mackbrislawn]

LDS, Catholics and Orthodox all agree, though, that there is such a thing as succession, and a priesthood that is passed on, unlike some Protestants who completely deny the existence of such a thing. This agreement is that which enables us to have a discussion about this point at all!

Perhaps it should be pointed out that the bishops, as successors of the apostles, are not themselves apostles–only the* office* of bishop, of overseer, is passed on from the apostles by the laying on of hands. When we say apostolic succession, we mean that the line of succession began with the apostles.

Furthermore, it is also possible for bishops to be heretical–there were numerous Arian bishops, for example–but that does not prevent them from being authentic bishops, capable of passing on the bishopric and priesthood.

There can be no doubt that in the Catholic and Orthodox churches there has been no break in the succession. Therefore, if their priesthood is no longer valid, it is not because of an interruption, but it is because God at some point divinely invalidated or withdrew the power of the laying on of hands. When did that happen? My understanding is that the LDS maintained that the apostasy occurred with the death of the last apostle. This would seem to imply that God withdrew His sanction at that time, and the subsequent laying on of hands was ineffectual, so the valid priesthood line died out then, before it hardly got started.

The Watchtower Society also holds to the idea of apostasy, and that it is the restoration, although Jehovah’s Witnesses are cagey, and are very vague as to when the apostasy occurred. With them, it seems to have been more gradual.

The idea of an apostasy then is simply a matter of faith, one needed to justify the existence of a replacement church.

 

[mackbrislawn]

LDS, Catholics and Orthodox all agree, though, that there is such a thing as succession, and a priesthood that is passed on, unlike some Protestants who completely deny the existence of such a thing. This agreement is that which enables us to have a discussion about this point at all!

Perhaps it should be pointed out that the bishops, as successors of the apostles, are not themselves apostles–only the* office* of bishop, of overseer, is passed on from the apostles by the laying on of hands. When we say apostolic succession, we mean that the line of succession began with the apostles.

Furthermore, it is also possible for bishops to be heretical–there were numerous Arian bishops, for example–but that does not prevent them from being authentic bishops, capable of passing on the bishopric and priesthood.

There can be no doubt that in the Catholic and Orthodox churches there has been no break in the succession. Therefore, if their priesthood is no longer valid, it is not because of an interruption, but it is because God at some point divinely invalidated or withdrew the power of the laying on of hands. When did that happen? My understanding is that the LDS maintained that the apostasy occurred with the death of the last apostle. This would seem to imply that God withdrew His sanction at that time, and the subsequent laying on of hands was ineffectual, so the valid priesthood line died out then, before it hardly got started.

The Watchtower Society also holds to the idea of apostasy, and that it is the restoration, although Jehovah’s Witnesses are cagey, and are very vague as to when the apostasy occurred. With them, it seems to have been more gradual.

The idea of an apostasy then is simply a matter of faith, one needed to justify the existence of a replacement church.

And, with no real bishops nor priesthood, there is no authority anymore to discern what should be scripture! The original paradox.

 

[JMM1957]

The Clement quote goes on to say…

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. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Clement is reprimanding the Corinthians for apostate behavior - that of dismissing righteous leaders.

Just one example of the bad behavior that was spoken of by NT authors concerning the Church. The writers predicted this type of thing, and many others, would happen, and told their audience about it so that when it happens they should not be surprised.

1 John 4:
"You belong to God, children,** and you have conquered them** (the false teachers and apostates), for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.

We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit"

Good always will conquer evil, not the other way around. Despite all the dire warnings in the NT about false teachers and general disobedience to the Word, those that do not succumb to these false teachings will prevail, it is clear.

 

[Melchior_1]

I agree with you on this point

You agreed Timothy and Titus had authority, and were local leaders of the Church, despite not being among the twelve nor knowing/meeting Jesus while He was on Earth?

Matthias most definitely had the same authority as the other apostles.

So at what point did the mechanism fail? At what point was there no successors of the Twelve, since in Scripture it was established that when one died one would be replaced?

No, there does not need to be a definitive start-point to justify the Great Apostasy.

There is plenty of evidence that things went awry early on.

In the New Testament in Acts itself we can see that there was issues within the Church. In the Gospels, Peter cut someone’s ear off, and also either accidentally or on purpose was set to exclude the other Apostles during the Transfiguration. Especially in his letters to Corinth, we see Paul talking about people not getting things right - and since Clement had to send a THIRD letter later on it’s fairly obvious the people of Corinth just didn’t get the memo about what it meant to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

If simply having people employ false practices and speaking false teaching is the litmus test for a Great Apostasy, then you’ll have to say the Great Apostasy started happening during the time Christ was present on Earth and while Paul was exercising his ministry. And since Paul was never one of the Twelve, we’d have to question all of his teachings since we do not know if he was subject to being within the Great Apostasy.

Finally, having people preaching false teachings is nothing new. Joseph Smith himself excommunicated several people for not teaching what he viewed was the truth. If we’re applying the logic you gave (early moments of false teachers), then the LDS church certainly isn’t the “restored church” when 42 confirmed people were excommunicated (and who knows how many more) by Joseph Smith, and 80 people (and who knows how many more) by Brigham Young.

 

[Melchior_1]

Acts is clear and shows in chapter one that this will not go on, it clearly states the test for someone to replace on of the twelve.

Originally Posted by King James Bible
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Authority was granted for a limited group for a limited time.

Then Paul is certainly not an Apostle, since he didn’t personally witness the Resurrection. Neither did Titus, nor Timothy. Which calls into question their authority. Luke and Mark also were not among the Twelve, meaning we must reject their authority as Gospel writers.

There’s no prohibition of ever replacing the Twelve again in that passage, rather it gives what Peter felt was the criteria. The criteria to be one of the Twelve and the means to elect them could certainly change over time, especially if someone held the office of Cephas and exercised that authority. During those moments, right after the Resurrection, the onus would have been to make sure someone was giving first-hand information As time went on and people held the traditions which they have been taught, whether by word, or epistle, this criteria possibly became less important.

I mean, does any Christian branch still cost lots to determine their leadership? The criteria and mechanism changed, but the office/role remained.

 

[JMM1957]

You agreed Timothy and Titus had authority, and were local leaders of the Church, despite not being among the twelve nor knowing/meeting Jesus while He was on Earth?

So at what point did the mechanism fail? At what point was there no successors of the Twelve, since in Scripture it was established that when one died one would be replaced?

In the New Testament in Acts itself we can see that there was issues within the Church. In the Gospels, Peter cut someone’s ear off, and also either accidentally or on purpose was set to exclude the other Apostles during the Transfiguration. Especially in his letters to Corinth, we see Paul talking about people not getting things right - and since Clement had to send a THIRD letter later on it’s fairly obvious the people of Corinth just didn’t get the memo about what it meant to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

If simply having people employ false practices and speaking false teaching is the litmus test for a Great Apostasy, then you’ll have to say the Great Apostasy started happening during the time Christ was present on Earth and while Paul was exercising his ministry. And since Paul was never one of the Twelve, we’d have to question all of his teachings since we do not know if he was subject to being within the Great Apostasy.

Finally, having people preaching false teachings is nothing new. Joseph Smith himself excommunicated several people for not teaching what he viewed was the truth. If we’re applying the logic you gave (early moments of false teachers), then the LDS church certainly isn’t the “restored church” when 42 confirmed people were excommunicated (and who knows how many more) by Joseph Smith, and 80 people (and who knows how many more) by Brigham Young.

I just have to say thank you for stepping up and defending the true faith in the CC. Your posts have been right on.

 

[adf417]

Later Pope Adrian VI stated in 1522:
“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

Hmmmm! Not sure what to think about this.

You are quoting a pope of “an apostate” church speaking about his own church being apostate prior to his own episcopacy of which, by vertue, was apostate and you consider it to be truth? would this be something you would actually use in a non-Catholic venue?

Peace!!!

 

[Stevenrushing]

I haven’t seen anyone actually reply to the original question - Why would churches who believe in an apostasy use the canon as established by the Catholic church?

Convenience

Seriously, that is all there is to it, at least from an LDS perspective. We use the KJV with deuterocanonical books removed like protestants, but that was honestly just to make it easier on new converts. There was enough to worry about with the BoM and D&C and living prophets, a whole different Bible would have made conversion much more difficult for too many people. JS did say that there was much inspired scripture in the “apocrypha”. He also said that Song of Solomon was not inspired scripture, but we don’t take it out of our scriptures.

I think this is also why the BoM was given to JS in KJV language, instead of in the language of his day. The BoM simply had to be written in scriptural language to be taken seriously as scripture. Of course, now it is seen by some as a hinderance, but I think it would have been much more of a hinderance for early converts for it to have been written in a common way.

 

[JMM1957]

I haven’t seen anyone actually reply to the original question - Why would churches who believe in an apostasy use the canon as established by the Catholic church?

Convenience

Seriously, that is all there is to it, at least from an LDS perspective. We use the KJV with deuterocanonical books removed like protestants, but that was honestly just to make it easier on new converts. There was enough to worry about with the BoM and D&C and living prophets, a whole different Bible would have made conversion much more difficult for too many people. JS did say that there was much inspired scripture in the “apocrypha”. He also said that Song of Solomon was not inspired scripture, but we don’t take it out of our scriptures.

I think this is also why the BoM was given to JS in KJV language, instead of in the language of his day. The BoM simply had to be written in scriptural language to be taken seriously as scripture. Of course, now it is seen by some as a hinderance, but I think it would have been much more of a hinderance for early converts for it to have been written in a common way.

The only ones who take it seriously are Mormons.

 

[adf417]

I haven’t seen anyone actually reply to the original question - Why would churches who believe in an apostasy use the canon as established by the Catholic church?

Convenience

Seriously, that is all there is to it, at least from an LDS perspective. We use the KJV with deuterocanonical books removed like protestants, but that was honestly just to make it easier on new converts. There was enough to worry about with the BoM and D&C and living prophets, a whole different Bible would have made conversion much more difficult for too many people. JS did say that there was much inspired scripture in the “apocrypha”. He also said that Song of Solomon was not inspired scripture, but we don’t take it out of our scriptures.

I think this is also why the BoM was given to JS in KJV language, instead of in the language of his day. The BoM simply had to be written in scriptural language to be taken seriously as scripture. Of course, now it is seen by some as a hinderance, but I think it would have been much more of a hinderance for early converts for it to have been written in a common way.

Hi Steven and thank you for your honest answer.
I can understand this bolded concern only if there was no other bible prior to the KJV “with deuterocanonical books removed”. If what you say is acceptable then wouldn’t it be even easier for new converts if we removed say, the book of Revelation oh and that one that talks about loving thy enemy? i don’t like that one at all.

Peace!!!

 

[ffg]

interesting that someone mentioned there doesn’t have to be knowns about the Apostacy. I think the unknown mentioned was a starting point.

It’s a short walk from hazy on ‘when’ to hazy on ‘if’.

I’d want no haze to claim something so important to my life.