Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession

[Bubba_Switzler]

Protestants accuse Catholics of being in apostasy, Catholics accuse Protestants of being in heresy. Catholics claim apostolic succession, Protestants claim Catholics are closet Romans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession

It seems, though, that while it is trivial to show that Catholicism incorporated some Roman traditions, usually by baptizing them (e.g. laying saint feasts on top of pagan holidays or converting temples into churches) that the essential features of Catholicism date into the early church. Protestants sometimes point to Constantine as the culprit but these essential Catholic traditions predate him.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a mini-dark age between the end of the Acts and the early church writings between which most of Catholicism came into general practice. This blank spot roughly corresponds to the two Jewish wars with Rome.

(And, interestingly, Messianic Jews accuse both Catholics and Protestants of being in apostasy because they discard the Torah law which Paul and the other apostles kept.)

Catholics have a strong point that the Bible is part of, and a product of. Catholic tradition. But Protestants have a point that if Christianity were corrupted somtime after the time of the apostles then the written Bible would be a reliable touchstone to which to return.

So are there Protestants here who can defend the accusation of the Great Apostasy and explain where Catholicism went wrong?

 

[mesl4]

I can’t believe there are no responses! I’m a wavering Protestant…up and down heading towards Catholicism. This question if for me what it all boils down to. What happened between the apostles and Clement or Ignatius? I can’t seem to find that missing link which makes me hesitant. Maybe there was some rapture or some crazy end of the world thing that happened at the time of the last apostles’ death…the "last martyr " of Revelation and that was when Satan was released to deceive the nations. This is my fear of why there doesn’t seem to be any link in that “mini dark age” you refer to. So if someone can help, that would be great!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Protestants accuse Catholics of being in apostasy, Catholics accuse Protestants of being in heresy. Catholics claim apostolic succession, Protestants claim Catholics are closet Romans.

Gabriel of 12;
It is recorded history that every Pope ever lived is recorded since Peter, the Roman Catholic church is the True apostolic church from Peter and the apostles of Jesus. It is not a claim it is a matter of historical fact.

Bubba:
It seems, though, that while it is trivial to show that Catholicism incorporated some Roman traditions, usually by baptizing them (e.g. laying saint feasts on top of pagan holidays or converting temples into churches) that the essential features of Catholicism date into the early church. Protestants sometimes point to Constantine as the culprit but these essential Catholic traditions predate him.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a mini-dark age between the end of the Acts and the early church writings between which most of Catholicism came into general practice. This blank spot roughly corresponds to the two Jewish wars with Rome.

Gabriel of12:
The mini dark age you speak of lasted for 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus, when the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church went underground when she was persecuted. The Catholic church surfaces in and out from this mini-dark age because her popes, bishops and followers are recorded by pagan Rome and Jews. When the Catholic Martyrs are recorded to be on trial for their Catholic faith, and many went to their deaths refusing to deny our Catholic faith which is stilled practiced these 2000 years.

Bubba;
(And, interestingly, Messianic Jews accuse both Catholics and Protestants of being in apostasy because they discard the Torah law which Paul and the other apostles kept.)

Gabriel of 12:
I dont know of which Messianic Jews you speak of here? But the Jewish community publicly announced that the Catholic faith is the true Christian faith that was founded by Jesus himself. As far as the Torah Law and Paul, Paul preached against “Circumcision” from the law, and freed all new Christians from these Laws, to which Jesus Christ himself fulfilled. Catholic Christians have died to this world and risen in Jesus Christ. Where the “Spirit” is their is no law to convict. There is much theology to discuss in these matters. For one Catholics do not discard the Torah law, for we still possess them in our bibles. The “Messiah” the prophets foretold about has fulfilled the law and the prophets.

Bubba;
Catholics have a strong point that the Bible is part of, and a product of. Catholic tradition. But Protestants have a point that if Christianity were corrupted somtime after the time of the apostles then the written Bible would be a reliable touchstone to which to return.

Gabriel of 12;
I cant connect your comment from fact. Fact, the Catholic church put the bible books together and canonized them as God breathed. Yet protestants accept the infallible bible put together by an infallible authority the Catholic church which is the body of Jesus Christ and then “protest” against the Catholic faith 1500 years later?. If early christianity went into corruption or total apostacy, then you call Jesus a liar, for Jesus promised to never leave his church, and Jesus has kept his promise and continues too today. The bible records the Catholic faith, supports, and teaches Catholic doctrine, and is a Catholic book.

Bubba;
So are there Protestants here who can defend the accusation of the Great Apostasy and explain where Catholicism went wrong?

Gabriel of 12;
IMHO, there is “NO ONE” who can prove the Catholic church went into a total apostacy. All you will get is theories, and opinions dating since the 18th century. Until then the world has always known Jesus built his Church upon Peter and his apostles, and his church is still here today and will still be here unchanged until Jesus returns for his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in One body, in One Lord by One Baptism.

Peace be with you

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The mini dark age you speak of lasted for 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus, when the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church went underground when she was persecuted.

So the burden here really is on Protestants to show/explain what happened to Christianity over this 300 year period. I’ve never heard a consistent theory put forward. I’m ready to listen, though.

As far as the Torah Law and Paul, Paul preached against “Circumcision” from the law, and freed all new Christians from these Laws, to which Jesus Christ himself fulfilled.

All “new Christians” or all gentiles? There is an important difference. The Jerusalem Council merely concluded that gentiles need not convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus (and that Jews were permitted to socialize with gentiles). Throughout Acts, Jewish Christians continued to practice Judaism (insofar as the non-Christian Jews permitted).

Yet protestants accept the infallible bible put together by an infallible authority the Catholic church which is the body of Jesus Christ and then “protest” against the Catholic faith 1500 years later?.

Of course, Luther had some specific gripes against the Church of his day but setting those aside, the question for Protestants is this: what do modern Protestants know that was unknown for 1500 odd years? (Or is it the case that protestantism was always latent in the CC but only burst forth when the political conditions allowed?)

 

[NDfan]

Protestants accuse Catholics of being in apostasy, Catholics accuse Protestants of being in heresy. Catholics claim apostolic succession, Protestants claim Catholics are closet Romans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession

It seems, though, that while it is trivial to show that Catholicism incorporated some Roman traditions, usually by baptizing them (e.g. laying saint feasts on top of pagan holidays or converting temples into churches) that the essential features of Catholicism date into the early church. Protestants sometimes point to Constantine as the culprit but these essential Catholic traditions predate him.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a mini-dark age between the end of the Acts and the early church writings between which most of Catholicism came into general practice. This blank spot roughly corresponds to the two Jewish wars with Rome.

(And, interestingly, Messianic Jews accuse both Catholics and Protestants of being in apostasy because they discard the Torah law which Paul and the other apostles kept.)

Catholics have a strong point that the Bible is part of, and a product of. Catholic tradition. But Protestants have a point that if Christianity were corrupted somtime after the time of the apostles then the written Bible would be a reliable touchstone to which to return.

So are there Protestants here who can defend the accusation of the Great Apostasy and explain where Catholicism went wrong?

Bubba are you looking for justification that the church went into Apostasy right after Acts or just that it in general went into apostasy??

 

[Hisalone]

I can’t believe there are no responses! I’m a wavering Protestant…up and down heading towards Catholicism. This question if for me what it all boils down to. What happened between the apostles and Clement or Ignatius? I can’t seem to find that missing link which makes me hesitant. Maybe there was some rapture or some crazy end of the world thing that happened at the time of the last apostles’ death…the "last martyr " of Revelation and that was when Satan was released to deceive the nations. This is my fear of why there doesn’t seem to be any link in that “mini dark age” you refer to. So if someone can help, that would be great!

My friend it appears you have already made a decision.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba are you looking for justification that the church went into Apostasy right after Acts or just that it in general went into apostasy??

I don’t want to prejudice others’ arguements so I would like to invite Protestants to explain it to me either way. (My hunch is that its difficult to argue any other time period for the reasons I cited in the OP, but I’m willing to be corrected on that.)

Unlike most Catholics, I don’t believe in the infallibility of the CC but, on the other hand, I have yet to see a coherent argument for Protestantism.

So make your best case.

 

[NDfan]

I don’t want to prejudice others’ arguements so I would like to invite Protestants to explain it to me either way. (My hunch is that its difficult to argue any other time period for the reasons I cited in the OP, but I’m willing to be corrected on that.)

Unlike most Catholics, I don’t believe in the infallibility of the CC but, on the other hand, I have yet to see a coherent argument for Protestantism.

So make your best case.

Well I’m not in the camp that says the church went into this great apostasy. I think some doctrines the church defined don’t hold to apostolic teachings. For instance scripture knows nothing of Mary as the dispenser of all graces, that without her cooperation mankind was basically doomed, and that no one enters the gate of Heaven without Mary’s permission per se. I’ve seen some accuse the church of apostasy by defining and teaching these doctrines.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Bubba, in defense of the non Catholic assumptions of a total apostacy. While the Catholic church was being persecuted, many eastern Catholic Bishops and priests went into “apostacy” but never did a total apostacy ever occurr in history in the Catholic church.

Pagan Rome who were persecuting the Catholic church during the 2nd 3rd centuries, recorded court cases which have been discovered since the 18th century indicating during these trials Bishops “denied” the Catholic faith under torture. IMHO, Joseph Smith the Mormon founder got a copy of these ancient documents when discovered during his life time, misinterpreted them and passed judgement on the Whole of Christianity that went into total apostacy which never happened. The Mormon theory of a total christian apostacy can never be proven by historical fact.

Besides I dont know of any Protestants who believe in a total apostacy, only New Christian faiths that came into existance since the 18th century.

So along with many heretics and heresies the Catholic church has battled and won, apostates in the church did happen and is recorded, but never a total apostacy. In fact the Roman Pope welcomed back these apostates who confessed their sins and did not need to be baptised again into the Catholic church although at the Eastern Bishops disagreed with the Pope, never the less they did not rebaptise these apostate Christians from the 2nd, and third centuries.

 

[mesl4]

My friend it appears you have already made a decision.

I have? What is it?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Hi Bubba, in defense of the non Catholic assumptions of a total apostacy. While the Catholic church was being persecuted, many eastern Catholic Bishops and priests went into “apostacy” but never did a total apostacy ever occurr in history in the Catholic church.

See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

I’m still hoping that some Protestants will step up to the plate here, I know there are a lot of them in these forums.

Protestants choose to worship God differently from Catholics becauase they believe that Catholics are doing it wrong. They think that Catholics are doing it wrong because they went offtrack somewhere, the “Great Apostasy”.

The Mormon theory of a total christian apostacy can never be proven by historical fact. Besides I dont know of any Protestants who believe in a total apostacy, only New Christian faiths that came into existance since the 18th century.

It’s not just Mormons, though. It goes back at least as far as the Calvinists and, arguably, to Luther himself.

 

[Hisalone]

I have? What is it?

Are you not attending RCIA?
If so it appears you have made a decision.

 

[mark_a]

Protestants accuse Catholics of being in apostasy, Catholics accuse Protestants of being in heresy. Catholics claim apostolic succession, Protestants claim Catholics are closet Romans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession

It seems, though, that while it is trivial to show that Catholicism incorporated some Roman traditions, usually by baptizing them (e.g. laying saint feasts on top of pagan holidays or converting temples into churches) that the essential features of Catholicism date into the early church. Protestants sometimes point to Constantine as the culprit but these essential Catholic traditions predate him.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a mini-dark age between the end of the Acts and the early church writings between which most of Catholicism came into general practice. This blank spot roughly corresponds to the two Jewish wars with Rome.

(And, interestingly, Messianic Jews accuse both Catholics and Protestants of being in apostasy because they discard the Torah law which Paul and the other apostles kept.)

Catholics have a strong point that the Bible is part of, and a product of. Catholic tradition. But Protestants have a point that if Christianity were corrupted somtime after the time of the apostles then the written Bible would be a reliable touchstone to which to return.

So are there Protestants here who can defend the accusation of the Great Apostasy and explain where Catholicism went wrong?

My opinion:

Muhammed was just too unoriginal, so he claimed corruption of Jewish and Christian writings, to his own benefit.

The Orthodox leadership can’t get together about what to do with or about the Catholics.

Most traditional Protestants are pretty content with the Constantine era apostasy since they, whether they admit it or not, accept the Catholic Church’s new testament and teachings about the incarnation, virgin birth, divinity of Christ, and the Trinity.

And the stranger the group (Mormons and JW’s), the earlier the apostasy happened. If not, they could not differentiate from Protestantism.

For me, Jews are the only group that could possibly claim that the Catholic Church got it wrong.

 

[mesl4]

Are you not attending RCIA?
If so it appears you have made a decision.

I’m in RCIA but not sure if I will go through with the conversion because of the struggles I’ve mentioned above…so no, I haven’t made any decision.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Let’s see if I can share some thoughts in this thread as it’s around this concept where I tend to have my difficulties with Catholicism.

First of all the idea of a “Great Apostasy” is silly-the distances and types of communication involved mean that the various parts of the world where Christians lived were in a state of flux, with beliefs and practices in one part that weren’t found in other parts-the catacomb writings in Rome for example, that aren’t found elsewhere or the variations in Easter dating in different regions to say nothing of liturgical variations.

That said I do believe that apostasy did enter the church.

I believe that Apostasy began attacking church leadership during the time of the Apostles. (3 John 9 and 10; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2 Timothy 4:10) This shows that God never promised that leadership in the Church would be free from error. Thus “apostolic succession” isn’t a guarantee of good teaching/leadership in every case.

I also believe that the reference to the “rock” is to Peter and his confession of Jesus as the Christ. It is this message that follows the initial outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost and leads thousands into the church, making Peter and his message the rock, or foundation on which these converts are added.

I believe this to have been a special grace given to Peter by Jesus-that the gates of Hell would not be able to remain closed to this message, but that this preaching would open them and allow those dead in sin to come in the life promised by Christ.

That said, I believe there to be no special role for Peter’s successors any more than the other successors of the Apostles. They are all overseers in the church and were appointed in multiples in every local church rather than the later monarchichal episcopate.

The collegial model meant that a church or churches was never at the mercy of one erring leader as we see in 3 John-they had others leaders to cling to until John resolved the situation. the rise of the monarchical episcopate removed this protection.

Looking at what was written about Clement and Linus during the time of their offices-we see no sense that they were different than other leaders, and the accounts differ as to who ordained them and who came before or after whom-or whether they served at the same time as part of a group of leaders.

(For more detail, check out this link and thread)

We do see later Bishops of Rome who appear to have taken advantage of the good will of other leaders and claimed prerogatives for themselves that were not their for the early Roman leaders. The most notorious is of course, Victor, who set aside apostolic tradition in favor of his personal preference. An earlier “pope” had tried something similar, but the response from other leaders led to his backing down. I believe it to be a touch of humour on the part of God that Victor criticized John’s teaching and in doing so came to resemble Diotrophes of the third Epistle.

So I believe in a church with fallible leaders who often made choices on the basis of envy or personal gain-this doesn’t mean that Christ was totally lost in the process or that He was unable to preserve His word (God spoke through a donkey in OT times, so he could use some stubborn post-apostolic people as well)

It does mean I don’t think everything in the Catechism can be tagged with an Apostolic pedigree and I don’t think that Catholic dogma should be given an automatic pass without review and comparison to Scripture-people are still people, still have egos and still make mistakes. That’s why individual believers in a local church are told by John to "test the spirits (1 John 4:1-6)

The disservice I believe the current view of Catholic ecclesiology does is that it a) makes it easy for abusive leaders to abuse once they make it into leadership (not all leaders are abusive, but those that are have an easier time because they are “right”) and b) small errors in understanding have become magnified because the original premise can never be reconsidered because the church can’t be wrong.

Even though infallibility is technically limited, it often seems like no one is willing to question anything because of the “rightness” of the church. This attitude led to the protestant schism and even though the counter-reformation eventually occurred, admitting that there were problems it was too late to solve the initial ills (similar situations have occurred at other times in history).

Those are my thoughts on the topic-I will respond to polite requests for clarification and I will consider points that are brought up in a similar spirit.

Here’s hoping these thoughts prove useful to you.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s see if I can share some thoughts in this thread as it’s around this concept where I tend to have my difficulties with Catholicism.

Thank you for a very thoughtful post on the topic.

My original hope was to engage Protestants in this discussion but they seem unwilling to take up this issue.

Your points are certainly relevant otherwise, though. (I’m guessing that you are not Protestant but merely a skeptical Catholic.)

You preface most of your points with “I believe…”. Are you willing to defend your points with argument and evidence or are you merely stating opinions that you have formed?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Thank you for a very thoughtful post on the topic.

My original hope was to engage Protestants in this discussion but they seem unwilling to take up this issue.

Your points are certainly relevant otherwise, though. (I’m guessing that you are not Protestant but merely a skeptical Catholic.)

You preface most of your points with “I believe…”. Are you willing to defend your points with argument and evidence or are you merely stating opinions that you have formed?

You’re welcome. I am not Catholic, I have a number of issues with Catholic doctrine, just not all of the same ones as Protestants-for example I have no problem with the idea of Real Presence, but Transubstantiation isn’t something I think should be dogmatically held since it is based on an outdated view of matter and can’t be proven in any useful fashion.

I use “I believe” because it is accurate-unlike some Catholics I don’t pretend to personal infallibility on disputed matters of theology. I recognize that alternative hypotheses exist for some of these areas and while I argue for what I believe to be the strongest interpretations, I don’t disallow other views.

If you’d like to play nicely and dialogue about why I believe certain things I’m up for that-if you want to call me an heretical idiot for not bowing down to the supreme pontiff I can get that in a number of threads in the NC forum.

Your call.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If you’d like to play nicely and dialogue about why I believe certain things I’m up for that-if you want to call me an heretical idiot for not bowing down to the supreme pontiff I can get that in a number of threads in the NC forum.

I’ll leave the heretic bonfires to others.

Since you are not arguing for the Great Apostasy, we should start a new thread. I would suggest framing it around CC infalliblity in the abstract, perhaps with some specific examples.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’ll leave the heretic bonfires to others.

Since you are not arguing for the Great Apostasy, we should start a new thread. I would suggest framing it around CC infalliblity in the abstract, perhaps with some specific examples.

We could do that, but CC infallibility is a room without walls as this thread demonstrated-if you can’t even agree on what is infallible, then no one can effectively question you about it.

If you have a specific idea in mind I’m open to it.

 

[mesl4]

So are there Protestants here who can defend the accusation of the Great Apostasy and explain where Catholicism went wrong?

I can’t speak for all Protestants, but having grown up in non-Catholic christian churches, and have been pretty into it/evangelical the past 15 yrs or so, here’s my 2 cents:

The only time I ever heard the term “great apostasy” or the idea that the Church fell into some Total Apostasy, was when Mormon missionaries came to my door 7 yrs ago. That’s actually what got me where I am today…in this possibly converting to Catholicism ordeal.(By the way, Bubba, I can’t tell from your question if you’re Catholic or Protestant or ?)

Protestants generally refer to Catholics as being “unsaved” because they have a “works salvation.” There are some that would say “I think there are some Catholics that are saved or that have a relationship with Jesus but they are not the norm.”

We (Protestants) do not define the Church by the denomination or name of the religion. At least in my church life/christian experience, we are pretty anti-“religion” and do not refer to our belief as a “religion”, but as a “faith” or “relationship.” We would define the Church as any follower of Jesus. Someone who worships God, accepts Jesus as their personal Savior, and seeks to do his will. With that vague, yet Biblical definition, “The Church” goes far beyond the walls of denominations/buildings/religions. Most Protestants I know know very little of Church history. They know their Bible, and their tradition of their spiritual upbringing (though they’d NEVER say that or even think that), but they haven’t really thought about where or when an apostasy would have occured. They just see the way of the RCC and how institutionalized it is, and how different it seems from that message of Jesus. I think if they thought about it, like I did at first, they would just say there had always been a remnant of faithful, like in the OT, but power hungry people took over and got more power from the Empire, until the Church and Government were so intertwined that rules and power became too important. People blindly followed since any other teachings that didn’t agree w/the leaders, were excommunicated so were not allowed to grow or predominate.

Now, as I looked more deeply, I was not able to find any real evidence for these ideas above. On the contrary, I found more evidence for apostolic succession being Biblical and Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was key (Ch 44-48?) when he spoke of the apostles choosing successors. It just makes me so hesistant since Paul warned of wolves “not sparing the flock.” I just wonder if we can trust the Pope/leaders since like the other guys above said, the infallibility thing makes it really tricky. It leaves no room for just doing what your conscience tells you is right.