Do Any Writings of the Early Church Fathers Support the Theory of a "Great Apostasy"

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello all;

In another thread it was suggested that perhaps a new thread should be started to discuss whether or not the writings of the Early Church Fathers support the LDS position that a “Great Apostasy” occurred shortly after the death of the last of the original Apostles. I do not know if any LDS theologians quote from the ECFs in support of this essential LDS belief, but here’s our chance to discuss … What say you all?

-Peace

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello again;

I’ll “bump” my own thread and try to get things started. I will present an argument espousing a Catholic point of view on the Early Church Fathers or “ECFs” - i.e. that there was no “Great Apostasy.”

The best known ECFs for the first 200 years of the Church are saints Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Irenaeus. The writings of these persons are very well documented and very well known. They begin *during * the time of the Apostles, and end about the year 200. They cover the period when - according to the LDS faith - a progressive corruption of the Church and its teachings took place.

When you study these ECFs you find that they consistently teach Catholic doctrines. St. Clement (who died around 80 AD) plainly asserts his authority as Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. St. Clement describes the Mass - as a sacrifice. St. Ignatius, a co-worker of the Apostle John, writes a strong letter around 110 AD condemning those who reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. St. Justin Martyr, in 155 A.D., gives a detailed description of the Mass. St. Ireneaus, between 180 and 190 A.D., warns that one must follow the Church of Rome in order to follow the Apostolic teaching.

Need cites to authority for the above? From Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, check out the following:

St. Clement
(1) First Letter to the Corinthians 57, 1; Jurgens, #27
(2) First Letter to the Corinthians 59, 1; Jurgens, #28a
(3) First Letter to the Corinthians 44, 1: Jurgens, #21

St. Ignatius of Antioch
(1) Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6, 2; Jurgens, #64

St. Justyn Martyr
(1) Letter to the Romans 7, 3; Jurgens, #54a
(2) First Apology, 67, 20; Jurgens, #129
(3) First Apology, 66, 20; Jurgens, #128

St. Irenaeus
(1) Against Heresies, 3, 3, 2; Jurgens, #210.

Importantly, *none * of these ECFs even mentions a “Great Apostasy” as you would expect if it were occurring in their day. Nor do they feel it necessary to defend against such a charge from those seeking to discredit the newly founded and heavily persecuted christian faith. On the other hand, they do defend against other charges made against the faith, such as the accusation of “cannibalism”, and the attacks on the doctrine of the Incarnation. If the early Church were in the midst of a “Great Apostasy” then you would expect *both * the enemies of the Church and her defenders - the ECFs - to be commenting on this significant event. Instead there is silence from both sides.

According the the LDS position, the very early Church Fathers would have taught Mormon doctrines that were eventually abandoned by later “apostate” Fathers. However, no ECF ever taught a peculiarly Mormon doctrine such as polygamy, baptism for the dead, the multiplicity of gods, or celestial marriage. There is simply no record of any early church father espousing these beliefs. (Perhaps the LDS position would disagree, and I would love to hear an argument to the contrary, but I know of no such teachings.)

So, the evidence is to the contrary - the early Church was distinctively Catholic from its inception. The Catholic Church continue to teach the same Apostolic doctrines to the present day. Because there was no “Great Apostasy” there was no valid “Restoration” by Joseph Smith and the LDS faith - albeit a faith sincerely believed by many - is rooted in a historical fiction.

What is the LDS response to this position? Are there Early Church Fathers that taught distinctly Mormon doctrines? What is the reason for the historical record being silent on such an event? If there was a “Great Apostasy” then who were the apostates, where are their writings, and where are the defenders of Mormon doctrine that eventually succumbed to a growing number of apostates? Where is the evidence of the early Mormon doctrine that later apostate Fathers rejected? I ask this question in all sincerity because I truly want to know how the LDS church defends its teaching.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I just have two quick comments.

First, if someone was involved in an apostasy they likely wouldn’t point that out or even see it that way. They may not have thought they were seeing an apostasy, or they may have simply convinced themselves that they weren’t really apostasizing, as many do today. Catholic apostastes would not admit to being apostastes, they would say they were looking for the truth, as do ex-mormons who consciously leave the Church. Can’t trust 'em. (I’m not saying that any specific ECFs were apostate, but whether or not they believed in the great apostasy matters little to the LDS.)

Second, what I meant in discussing the ECFs is whether they taught the same general doctrines as are taught today in the Catholic Church, or whether the Mormon Church more closely resembles early Christianity as Bickmore writes. This would be a more valid argument in terms of the apostasy, and the reason I recommended a different thread, because this can get big fast.

I’ll just put my $2 once in a while, but I probably won’t be very active on this thread, so I hope some other LDS are willing to dialogue on this subject.

 

[Brad_Haas]

In short, the answer to the title of this thread is “No.” The Fathers were neither seeing nor participating in a great apostasy; nor did the earliest doctrines of the Church more closely resemble LDS teaching than Catholic teaching. The Fathers were as optimistic about the state and future of the Church as the Apostles were in their New Testament epistles.

But the question is pretty broad, so I don’t know if it will be discussed much.

I do want to point out that NewAdvent has almost all of the writings of the Early Church at newadvent.org/fathers/ . They have the complete works of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, etc… The Jurgens set is very nice for reference (I own it), but it doesn’t contain all of each document (if it did, it would have to be a few dozen more volumes!). Anyway, if I remember right, the documents posted on NewAdvent are from The Ante-Nicene Fathers and following books, which are now in public domain.

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

In another thread it was suggested that perhaps a new thread should be started to discuss whether or not the writings of the Early Church Fathers support the LDS position that a “Great Apostasy” occurred shortly after the death of the last of the original Apostles. I do not know if any LDS theologians quote from the ECFs in support of this essential LDS belief, but here’s our chance to discuss … What say you all?

Why go to the ECFs when that is made clear enough in the Bible. The word of God is more authoritative that the ECFs.

amgid

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

Why go to the ECFs when that is made clear enough in the Bible. The word of God is more authoritative that the ECFs.

amgid

If it was “made clear enough” you would be Catholic. It is absolutely NOT made clear enough. LDS read the Bible and see one thing, we read it and see another. The ECF’s either knew the apostles, were taught by them directly, or were no more than a generation or two removed from them. Chances are they were teaching what they were taught. This helps us to clear up disagreements over what is meant in the Bible. It gives us insight.

I can understand why you want to ignore the ECF’s. It’s harder to read them out of context.

 

[Tmaque]

On the thread as a whole…

What struck me when reading the ECF’s is the indisputable fact of the Real Presence. It’s also mentioned in some Roman writings. There is NO doubt that this doctrine was believed, accepted and taught from the beginning. Christ’s true Church must believe the doctrine…period. No one can dispute this. If the LDS held this belief they would have a much stronger argument. The fact that they do not, in my mind, destroys all credibility regarding their “restored Gospel”. This doctrine is the bulkhead of credibility to me. As it should be. Christ himself, in the Holy Eucharist, should be the defining identifier of his Church.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tmaque:

If it was “made clear enough” you would be Catholic. It is absolutely NOT made clear enough. LDS read the Bible and see one thing, we read it and see another. The ECF’s either knew the apostles, were taught by them directly, or were no more than a generation or two removed from them. Chances are they were teaching what they were taught. This helps us to clear up disagreements over what is meant in the Bible. It gives us insight.

I can understand why you want to ignore the ECF’s. It’s harder to read them out of context.

I agree with you here. This thread is going to get no response. Mormons care little about evidence anyway, so asking them to dialog about the ECF is futile. But I hope I am wrong and you do get a discussion going.

It was mentioned before that those in apostasy are not aware of it so do not write of it. Well, if you want to go down that road we can say the same of you. If you are in apostasy you will not write about it and are not aware of it. We have a greater case against you in the fact that what you believe is not in the early Church and cannot be substantiated with the Scriptures. I know, I know… the early Church was in apostasy so it wouldn’t agree with Mormon theology, and so on…

Peace

 

[Brad_Haas]

amgid:

Why go to the ECFs when that is made clear enough in the Bible. The word of God is more authoritative that the ECFs.

Indeed, it is quite clear in the Bible that the Church was fine, and will be until Christ returns.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

With the short selection of LDS here you probably won’t get many responses to this, true. If you really wanted, you could make an anouncement at FAIR about this thread and ask someone to come over to talk about the ECFs.

It’s not that LDS care little about evidence, it’s that compared to other topics they care little about the ECFs. It’s easy to see why Catholics would be very into it, but realize that probably the only reason a Mormon would read it would be to simply see what was taught when and how that compares today. Is it done? Sure. I probably won’t pick it up for a long time, though.

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

Indeed, it is quite clear in the Bible that the Church was fine, and will be until Christ returns.

You are fighting a losing battle Haas. Do you enjoy being on the losing side? You will do yourself a great favor by acknowledging the truth of Mormonism, and marrying your girl friend in the Mormon temple for time and all eternity. You will get a much better deal that way.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

You are fighting a losing battle Haas. Do you enjoy being on the losing side?

Nearly 100 verses from Sacred Scripture refuting the great apostacy is fighting a losing battle? Why don’t you offer some substantial proof rather than being sardonic?

To paraphrase a line from Hamlet, “The man doth protest too much, methinks”.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

Nearly 100 verses from Sacred Scripture refuting the great apostacy is fighting a losing battle? Why don’t you offer some substantial proof rather than being sardonic?

100 irrelevant verses you mean. I am smarter. I can quote 2000 irrelevant verses if you like!

To paraphrase a line from Hamlet, “The man doth protest too much, methinks”.

Nay, but the man is highly amused!

amgid

 

[Brad_Haas]

amgid:

You are fighting a losing battle Haas. Do you enjoy being on the losing side? You will do yourself a great favor by acknowledging the truth of Mormonism, and marrying your girl friend in the Mormon temple for time and all eternity. You will get a much better deal that way.

Ha. I don’t think she’d believe me if I sincerely tried to convince her I wanted to become LDS all of a sudden. Besides, I’m alright with my family in Heaven being more than a small, exclusive group (many of whom might have families of their own). Not having earthly families in Heaven won’t be a privation, just like not having chocolate cake in Heaven won’t be a privation - what we’ll have will be unimaginably better.

amgid:

100 irrelevant verses you mean. I am smarter. I can quote 2000 irrelevant verses if you like!

You’re joking, right?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Chris;

Thanks for joining in.
Chris Jodrey:

I just have two quick comments.

First, if someone was involved in an apostasy they likely wouldn’t point that out or even see it that way.

It really doesn’t matter which way the apostates would see themselves the way I see it. The question is how the rejection of “true” doctrine by the Church at a point in time would appear in history. For example, if the early church supporters emphasized the LDS “proxy” baptism, then stopped doing so as a whole because of an apostasy, someone within the church would have commented on that fact, either to support the decision or to attack the decision, and the detractors from the church would have pointed to the change in doctrine to undermine the church’s teaching authority. The issue is whether there was evidence of a dispute over doctrine changing from mormon to “apostate” christian, and the evidence shows that history is silent about such disputes.
Chris Jodrey:

Catholic apostastes would not admit to being apostastes, they would say they were looking for the truth, as do ex-mormons who consciously leave the Church.

Again, I would argue it really does not matter whether the “Catholic” apostates would admit or not to being apostate What is relevant is the evidence that entire mormon doctrines are being abandoned for “apostate” beliefs. Where is the evidence that LDS doctrines were being abandoned for “Catholic” and “apostate” christian ideas? No such evidence exists. Thus, I would conclude that the LDS “great apostasy” simply did not happen.
Chris Jodrey:

Second, what I meant in discussing the ECFs is whether they taught the same general doctrines as are taught today in the Catholic Church, or whether the Mormon Church more closely resembles early Christianity as Bickmore writes. This would be a more valid argument in terms of the apostasy, and the reason I recommended a different thread, because this can get big fast.

I thought I addressed that in the second half of my post, but the question is really the “other side of the coin” so to speak. If the Church has always taught and defended Catholic doctrines, then there’s no evidence that the ECFs suddenly abandoned LDS doctrines for an “apostate” form of christianity.
Chris Jodrey:

I’ll just put my $2 once in a while, but I probably won’t be very active on this thread, so I hope some other LDS are willing to dialogue on this subject.

Post whenever you can. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

Why go to the ECFs when that is made clear enough in the Bible. The word of God is more authoritative that the ECFs.

amgid

You’re missing the point amgid. Sure, the LDS church can *argue * that the bible supports the “great apostasy” theory and point to bible passages that we Catholics would say are being taken out of context. But that’s just spinning our wheels. I’m suggesting that even assuming *arguendo * that both interpretations are supportable, there is no evidence that the early church underwent a drastic falling away from what was - in the beginning - LDS doctrine. To the contrary, if one studies the writings generated by the early church during the exact time period in which the LDS church contends the great apostasy occurred, there is no evidence showing (1) a change in doctrine (2) from LDS doctrine to “apostate” christianity. If there were such an apostasy, the church writings would be drastically different in nature, or at the very least there would be a defense of the “traditional” LDS doctrines. There is no such evidence of which I am aware.

So, regardless of what LDS members or Catholics think the bible says about a great apostasy, it is my position here that the early church writings are one valid place to look for evidence of an early and total apostasy in which the Church abandoned distinctly LDS doctrines.

I notice, amgid, that you presented *no opposing evidence * of early “pre-apostasy” church practices being distinctly LDS in nature. Can you offer an explanation for this fact, or are you simply conceding the lack of evidence? I would like to know what argument you offer in response to the one I presented? Or do you simply choose to dismiss it altogether? I, for one, would like to know if there is some historical evidence supporting the LDS idea of a great apostasy, but I have yet to see any offered.

 

[dennisknapp]

Robert in SD:

Hi Chris;

Thanks for joining in.

It really doesn’t matter which way the apostates would see themselves the way I see it. The question is how the rejection of “true” doctrine by the Church at a point in time would appear in history. For example, if the early church supporters emphasized the LDS “proxy” baptism, then stopped doing so as a whole because of an apostasy, someone within the church would have commented on that fact, either to support the decision or to attack the decision, and the detractors from the church would have pointed to the change in doctrine to undermine the church’s teaching authority. The issue is whether there was evidence of a dispute over doctrine changing from mormon to “apostate” christian, and the evidence shows that history is silent about such disputes.Again, I would argue it really does not matter whether the “Catholic” apostates would admit or not to being apostate What is relevant is the evidence that entire mormon doctrines are being abandoned for “apostate” beliefs. Where is the evidence that LDS doctrines were being abandoned for “Catholic” and “apostate” christian ideas? No such evidence exists. Thus, I would conclude that the LDS “great apostasy” simply did not happen.I thought I addressed that in the second half of my post, but the question is really the “other side of the coin” so to speak. If the Church has always taught and defended Catholic doctrines, then there’s no evidence that the ECFs suddenly abandoned LDS doctrines for an “apostate” form of christianity.Post whenever you can. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Robert, great post!

This is what I have been trying to get at. Where is the paper trail? If we look into the history of the Church we see constant debates among Christians regarding a great many issues. The Church was constantly addressing deviant beliefs. This became such a concern in regards to Arianism that a Council was called. In fact, all Councils are called to address theological issues that presently affect the Church. So, to your point Robert, there should be evidence.

Peace

 

[arieh0310]

dennisknapp:

This is what I have been trying to get at. Where is the paper trail? If we look into the history of the Church we see constant debates among Christians regarding a great many issues. The Church was constantly addressing deviant beliefs. This became such a concern in regards to Arianism that a Council was called.

Exactly, why isn’t there any reference to an “LDS” heresy? We have plenty of documentation for heresies such as: Simon Magus, the first heretic, had been Patriarch of Menandrians, Basilidians, Valentinians, and the whole family of Gnostics; Tatian of Encratites, Severians, Aquarians, Apotactites, and Saccophori. The Montanists had been propagated into Tascodrugites, Pepuzians, Artotyrites, and Quartodecimans. Eutyches, in a later time, gave birth to the Dioscorians, Gaianites, Theodosians, Agnoetæ, Theopaschites, Acephali, Semidalitæ, Nagranitæ, Jacobites, and others. Dorotheans, the Psathyrians, and the Curtians; and the Eunomians into the Theophronians and Eutychians. Donatists speedily became Maximinianists; and besides these were the Rogatians, the Primianists, the Urbanists, and the Claudianists.

The list goes on and on and on, but were is Mormonism? If anything, the Arians have a greater claim to original Christianity than do the Mormons, at least they have a paper trail.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I understand what you are saying, but it still doesn’t convince me. In fact, some LDS would say that there is a “paper trail,” such as Bickmore. But even if there wasn’t, I’m not sure that that would be so significant. I mean, when and where did this “Mormonism” exist? How big was it? When and how did it go “extinct”? It is plausible that it finished up along with the deaths of the apostales and that the only real paper trail we would have is the Bible.

By the beginning of the 2nd century there were already groups breaking off all over the place. Besides the Bible, what’s the earliest documents that talk about these “heresies”? Also, you must realize that although it was the same Church, it was in a different dispensation. I wouldn’t argue that baptisms for the dead have always been done, and I would say that this dispensation is the time to focus on it, as well as for missionary work. So, in my opinion, did it exist then? Yes; but it was nowhere near as active as it is today. There are significant details that should be taken into consideration in this matter.

Now, according to what I’ve read, I think some kind of history of LDS-looking doctrines does in fact exist. Far be it from me to argue that though. Like I said, you will need a more informed Mormon for this discussion. What I really would not like to see here is a series of lines like, “Bickmore is a dope”, “Mormon apoloegtics isn’t real”, “That’s all wrong”, etc. If you do have real problems with what certain writers have written, argue it specifically and rationally, not just childishly insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Chris, are there specific works by Bickmore to which you’d point a Catholic? I don’t mean a list of everything he’s written on the early Church, but maybe what you find best and most compelling? (And is it available online? )