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

[dennisknapp]

TOmNossor:

The LDS position is not near so weak as folks seem to suggest. The Catholic position is not decimated by the things I list though. To be Catholic one must recognize that development occurred. If the Catholic Church had the authority to protect and define the SEED that was deposited by Christ and the Apostles, then the Apostles will find the Catholicism is the Christianity that seems true to them. If Joseph Smith had the authority to restore Christianity then the Apostles would find that Mormonism is the Christianity that seems true to them. But all evidence suggests that the original Apostles would find either Catholicism or Mormonism very different from the church they left the world with in the first century. AND I maintain that if all we had was LDS doctrine and practice and Catholic doctrine and practice and the witness that has survived of early Christianity, we could not prove who was correct.

That being said, when we recognize that the CoJCoLDS burst upon the scene without access to the documents we have today, I maintain that a powerful apologetic is created by the linkages shown. On this thread already the idea that LDS do violence to the ECF has been presented by a Catholic defender. I strenuously disagree, but I would.

Two evangelicals about 4-5 years ago published an article, Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It. It can be found here:

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

I do not think Catholics must attack Mormonism with the same fervor that Protestants must (Protestants must show that Catholicism is false and everyone else is false, Catholics can just show they are true because then there is no need for Reformations or Restorations. It is good to be Catholic!), but there are a large number of LDS books on the apostasy that directly address the Catholic Church and to which there has been little or no response. Again there is Catholic neglect and my opinion you are loosing the battle and you do not know it. I have a friend who might tell you that you are winning the battle and you do not know it, but I think from your dismissive statements you do not know the strength of the LDS position.

Charity, TOm

Thank you for you thoughtful response, Tom.

Do you honestly believe the weight of evidence from the early Church makes the LDS church and the Catholic Church even in regards to an early origin?

When has anyone been dismissive about the Mormon position? We have been trying to get some solid answers that don’t rely on circular reasoning, begging the question, and arguments from silence. What we have recieved has been very frustrating to address, for it deals in agnostics appeals to evidence and relativistic religious experiences.

Can you explain the strength of the LDS position in regards to the early Church? Or the strength of the LDS position, period.

I am willing to be convinced.

Peace

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

These are all prior to Irenaeus:

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).*

I addressed most of these in the first link I provided. Certainly not addressed to the point that they have zero effect, but addressed. And I maintain that Newman agrees with me!
BTW, I have never had anyone satisfy my translation concerns on your Ignatius quote. I go into a lot of detail on this in that link.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

dennisknapp:

Thank you for you thoughtful response, Tom.

Do you honestly believe the weight of evidence from the early Church makes the LDS church and the Catholic Church even in regards to an early origin?

When has anyone been dismissive about the Mormon position? We have been trying to get some solid answers that don’t rely on circular reasoning, begging the question, and arguments from silence. What we have recieved has been very frustrating to address, for it deals in agnostics appeals to evidence and relativistic religious experiences.

Can you explain the strength of the LDS position in regards to the early Church? Or the strength of the LDS position, period.

I am willing to be convinced.

Peace

I am not of the opinion that I can convince anyone. I think finding the LDS doctrines that have been condemned as heretical in various forms in the early church is powerful, but other things are powerful too.
Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

One thing that I would like to address is that development is not deviation. Real Presence becomes transubstantiation, public confession becomes private reconciliation, presidency of love becomes papal primacy, etc. As the Church grew so did her needs, and as a result the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. To quote Cardnal Newman:

For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope’s authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be wanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel with Christians abroad; they quarrelled at home among themselves. St. Ignatius applied the fitting remedy. The Sacamentum Unitatis was acknowledged on all hands; the mode of fulfilling and the means of securing it would vary with the occasion; and the determination of its essence, its seat, and its laws would be a gradual supply for a gradual necessity.

Newman goes on in further detail about how impossible it would be to have a 19th century papacy in the first few centuries. Need did not require an arbiter between local churches when dissention usually remained local. Only when heresies such as Arianism spread across Christendom did the Universal Church require a universal, authoritative pastor. Newman also makes it plain that the infant doctrine of Peterine primacy was held by the Church from the beginning (including being plainly elucidated in Scripture).

Christ knew how to build His Chruch, and he did it right the first time. St Peter’s prerogatives would remain a letter until complicated ecclesiastical matters forced its use. When Christ says to His Church “the gates of hell will not prevail” and “I am with you always, to the very end of the age” He meant it.

 

[dennisknapp]

TOmNossor:

I am not of the opinion that I can convince anyone. I think finding the LDS doctrines that have been condemned as heretical in various forms in the early church is powerful, but other things are powerful too.
Charity, TOm

Do these heretical view just resemble LDS doctrine or are they the same as LDS doctrine? Do the people who hold these views also hold other LDS positions like eternal progression, temple marriage, and polytheism?

Peace

 

[Brad_Haas]

TOm, I’ve been busy, so I haven’t had a chance to post, but I also wanted to thank you for your comments. When I put a lot of thought and effort into something, as you clearly have, I appreciate knowing that people read and appreciated it. So, thank you. I disagree with some of your argument, but your thoughtfulness and calm are refreshing.

 

[oat_soda]

no one prior to joe smith has ever described a mormon like faith existing around the time of the apostles or shortly there after.

if there is apostate bias or catholic bias, chances are someone would have written about these mormon-like people existing near the time of the apostles before the advent of mormonism in the 19th century. but nobody has pre, or post joe smith, has ever found evidence of the “great apostacy”.

we can use secular writings of the time to identify hundreds of gnostic sects which competed with the early christian church such as the mandeans or the ebionites. none of these heresies bare any significant resemblence to mormonism

therefore, based on an objective investiagation of the historical record it is impossible today, or throughout history, to collaborate or substantiate the LDS doctrine of the great apostacy.

because joe smith’s story of mormonism is based on a supposidly historical account, mormonism contradicts reason. faith presupposes knowledge and reason. faith in mormonism contradicts reason and can only be understood as fundamentaly an emotional response.

 

[oat_soda]

the SEED that was deposited by Christ and the Apostles, then the Apostles will find the Catholicism is the Christianity that seems true to them.

Christ-the Word of God, didn’t deposit a “seed”, he revealed himself. everything God wanted to reveal has been said in the pascal mystery of Christ through the apostles.

this sacred deposit of faith comes down to us in two distinct modes: sacred tradition; sacred scripture -or that which was put down in writting. this has been faithfully handed down through the generations from the apostles through the succesion of bishops until today. so Jesus, reveling himself, established a magesterium -the apostles, to transmit this Word through the ages. all of this can be documented objectively through the historical record. God is not nominalistic. he is the God of time and used it and all creation so he could reveal himself as the Word of God.

catholicism is a religion of the Word of God, and not a religion of the book like mormonism, islam, or much of the protestant world. we can defend or faith not just with blind obedience, but with reason, history, science, philosophy, natural law, …etc. because everything ultimately points to God who reveled himself totally in the Word who is the truth, the way, and the life.

Joe smith is a liar and a deciever. he is not the truth, nor the way, nor the life. joe smith’s way is death.

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

One thing that I would like to address is that development is not deviation.

I have yet to find anything in Catholic history that I believe I can hold up and say, “Here is beyond the shadow of a doubt the departure from the faith of the Apostles.” (am convinced that I can show such things in Protestantism, and if I denied supernatural public revelation I could show these things in Mormon thought too). I am yet to be convinced by various SSPX and Sedavacantist arguments that Vatican II was such a thing, but they sure seem to be on my side of this “authority in the Roman Catholic Church question.”

So I am not ready to say that development is departure from the faith. I am convinced that history does teach us that the maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins is not applicable to determine the direction of various theological debates.

I am not ready to say that Newman’s theory of developments is incompatible with the Catholicism of the 1800’s and before, but it certainly is itself a development that caused no small stir.

At this point, I find it best to look at Catholicism as it has developed and use this to determine its strengths and weaknesses. This means accepting that Newman’s development ideas are part of Catholicism. And conservative interpretations of Vatican II with an attempt to align them to past decisions of past councils is best. As I continue to interact with SSPX and Sedavacantists, these ideas are being challenged, and could point me in a direction that these folks never intended.

Catholicism for me is still solidly a second choice, and one I do not feel called to investigate with the intent of embracing (though I once did). Instead I maintain contact with Catholicism because it improves my Mormonism, interests me, and from this contact God may do as He wishes with me. Were I to move into more serious consideration, I would need to make a definitive stand on what development can and cannot be.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

dennisknapp:

Do these heretical view just resemble LDS doctrine or are they the same as LDS doctrine? Do the people who hold these views also hold other LDS positions like eternal progression, temple marriage, and polytheism?

Peace

That men can become gods beyond what Eastern Orthodox believe is solidly within the pre-Augustine Western and pre-Capadacian (sp?) Eastern fathers.

Some interesting temple parallels exist in 1st Temple Cult Jerusalem and in some Gnostic teachings. I do not see much in “Orthodox” Christian fathers.

Polytheism is a term that I believe is hard to apply to a my view of the CoJCoLDS without also applying it to any Trinitarian, but pre-Nicea the distinctiveness between the three members of the Trinity was much greater than it was after about 360AD. The low point for distinctiveness was probably Aquinas, but from Augustine till about 50-100 years ago there was little distinctiveness in the most scholarly of elucidations.

And my statement was meant to say that LDS views called heretical today (and more so 50 years ago since deification and the distinctiveness of the Trinity are being re-explored a little) were part of the Early Church. (not merely part of the heresies of the early church, but some things like the Temple seem only to be solidly evidence in heretical groups).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Brad and Dennis, thanks for the kind comments, and Oat Soda, thanks for your comments too.

Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

Catholicism for me is still solidly a second choice

Then you are in disagreement with your founder. From Joseph Smith’s Sermon on the Plurality of Gods:

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.
*
for they were all wrong; and… that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;…" *(Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19)

A decade after Joseph Smith’s death, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt answered some questions about other churches:

• Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?

A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God...*

In 1958 Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following under the heading “Church of the Devil”:
*
1. All churches or organizations… which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God; and 2. The Roman Catholic Church specifically — singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being “most abominable above all other churches.” ( 1 Ne. 13:5)… There is no salvation outside this one true Church,… Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ and his gospel is therefore not of God. Such agencies have been and are founded or fostered by the devil who is the enemy to all righteousness. (Mormon Doctrine, page 129)*

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

Then you are in disagreement with your founder. From Joseph Smith’s Sermon on the Plurality of Gods:

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

for they were all wrong; and… that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;…" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19)

You have here mixed up two separate quotes from two entirely separate sources, and I have no idea how or why.

The first paragraph you quoted comes from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith; and it actually speaks in favor of the Catholic Church (and against Protestantism).

The second paragraph does indeed come from the Pearl of Great Price, JS-H 1:19; but that also says nothing against the Catholic Church. It is a quote from the First Vision, in which the Lord is speaking of those (Protestant) professors of religion which Joseph had encountered in his quest for religious truth, and who were later responsible for bitterly persecuting him. Neither quote speaks against the Catholic Church, and the first quote definitely speaks in favor of it.

A decade after Joseph Smith’s death, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt answered some questions about other churches:

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?

A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God…

Yes, Elder Pratt and several others in the past have expressed such views; but it is a grave error, and stems from a serious misunderstanding of true LDS doctrine.

In 1958 Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following under the heading “Church of the Devil”:

1. All churches or organizations… which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God; and 2. The Roman Catholic Church specifically — singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being “most abominable above all other churches.” (1 Ne. 13:5)… There is no salvation outside this one true Church,… Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ and his gospel is therefore not of God. Such agencies have been and are founded or fostered by the devil who is the enemy to all righteousness. (Mormon Doctrine, page 129)

The same here. Elder McConkie has seriously misunderstood 1 Nephi 13:5, as have many others. That is not what the scripture means.

amgid

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I would just like to say that this is why Mormons do not just give up when certain people tell them that the EFCs support X religion. I understood little of Tom’s posts, but I understood enough to know that he knows what he’s talking about more than I do and that these Catholic arguments are not winning him over at all. I have not only seen this among Mormons, but among protestants too. So, without reading and re-reading the whole ECF collection, my only other option is to choose to believe or disbelieve those who have, and that’s based on the way they write and their handling of the subject matter. This isn’t true for just the ECFs, but for any topic bearing importance on religion, like archaeology and physics. I may not know all about it, but I have met many good members of the Church who have convinced me that they do. What I’m saying here doesn’t apply just to LDS, but to everyone. If we were all experts in every field then we may get some real objective judgment of religion, but until then a lot is based on placing confidence in sources.

 

[oat_soda]

If we were all experts in every field then we may get some real objective judgment of religion, but until then a lot is based on placing confidence in sources.

nobody can make someone convert to the catholic faith. all of the reason in the world can’t do this. it really comes down to the grace of God. Augustine said it best with faith seeking understanding. the true faith can never contradict reason, but reason increases our faith. that ultimate submission to the Word of God comes from God himself. i can only make reasonable arguments for the faith, God does the rest.

it has been demonstrated ad nauseam that the BOM and the BOA have zero historically credibility- this is a huge red herring. examination of the church fathers has only led protestants to the catholic faith and not mormonism. in fact, mormons when interpreting the writtings of the church fathers, presuppose their mormon beliefs and force something when it isn’t there.

besides, mormonism can only be understood in light of joe smith’s revealation. where Jesus pointed to the scriputures to show how he fullfilled them and all the prophesies which speak of him, mormonism has to discredit the entire historical development of the church in order to justify its existance for the very fact it stands outside the historical development of the faith. joe smith’s religion didn’t fullfill christianity, it is totally alien to it.

 

[dennisknapp]

oat soda:

besides, mormonism can only be understood in light of joe smith’s revealation. where Jesus pointed to the scriputures to show how he fullfilled them and all the prophesies which speak of him, mormonism has to discredit the entire historical development of the church in order to justify its existance for the very fact it stands outside the historical development of the faith. joe smith’s religion didn’t fullfill christianity, it is totally alien to it.

Excellent point, and from the discussions I’ve been in with Mormons the next step is for them to doubt if we can know anything at all, thereby making anything possible, although improbable. If they side with an agnostic understanding of how we know anything they confuse the issue just enough to make them satisfied they have deflected another attack on their faith. For them it is not about concrete facts or logical thinking. It’s about throwing doubt on the arguments brought forth against Mormonism, and they don’t even have to be strong or real doubts, any doubt will do no matter how weak.

Peace

 

[RHooker]

The LDS movement developed out of the Restoration Movement of the Second Great Awakening. Its premise was that, in the latter days, the true church had to be restored. However, this means that Jesus failed to establish a lasting church. It seems ridiculous to think that Jesus, the Son of God, would allow his Church to be taken over by apostates. If we follow the LDS argument further, they should reject the entire New Testament since the NT Canon was determined by an apostate church.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Dennis and oat soda, have you read the thread entitled ‘Appeal to apologists’?

It seems ridiculous to think that Jesus, the Son of God, would allow his Church to be taken over by apostates.

Also that he would let anybody become apostate at all. By this logic, if God is loving and all-powerful then sin wouldn’t exist.

 

[Fiat_Lux]

Chris Jodrey:

Also that he would let anybody become apostate at all. By this logic, if God is loving and all-powerful then sin wouldn’t exist.

We’re able to sin because we have free will. God doesn’t interfere in our choices or direct us, though he knows what we are going to choose before we choose it.

God’s prescience is key, really. A fool starts to build a tower when he knows he doesn’t have the resources to finish it, or sends his army into battle when he knows his army is insufficient. God sent His Son at a time when He knew His Church would stand. The alternative is ridiculous. God is not a fool.

 

[amgid]

Fiat Lux:

God’s prescience is key, really. A fool starts to build a tower when he knows he doesn’t have the resources to finish it, or sends his army into battle when he knows his army is insufficient. God sent His Son at a time when He knew His Church would stand. The alternative is ridiculous. God is not a fool.

Apostasy and restoration has been the general pattern of God’s dealings with mankind since the beginning of creation. Was God a fool when the antediluvians sinned and all perished in the flood, and only Noah and his immediate family were spared? Was God a fool when the Jews sinned and rebelled against God, and the gospel dispensation was taken away from them and given to the Gentiles? God is no more a fool now that Christendom has apostatized, and a restoration by means of a new gospel dispensation has become necessary.

amgid