For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[RebeccaJ]

It may have been too subtle for you. I apologize. It was rhetorical.

Soooo, just more bs.

 

[kevangreen]

Soooo, just more bs.

bs walks and money talks LOL

 

[Snow]

Soooo, just more bs.

There’s the high caliber response of yours we’ve come to know and love. Your rapier wit cuts to the quick.

 

[kevangreen]

There’s the high caliber response of yours we’ve come to know and love. Your rapier wit cuts to the quick.

i just type how i talk
kinda gives it more life

 

[Robert_in_SD]

That would be one of the claims. However there is no historical evidence to demonstrate [Peter’s Successors in Rome]

First, you haven’t explained what it is about this point that proves (or disproves) the Great Apostacy. I’d like some explanation as to why you think Peter’s immediate successors are some link to the Apostacy of the early Church?

Second, there certainly is historical evidence of Peter and his successors in Rome. In addition to the physical presence of the remains of St. Peter under the basilica, there is also the writing of the early church fathers on the matter of Rome, Peter, and his successors. See here and here for a more detailed treatment. But in general:

Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Chalcedon

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

History attests to the successors of Peter, within the Catholic faith. In addition, the declaration of orthodoxy and unity centered around the Roman See appears to contradict the LDS vision of a universally apostate and pagan Church.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ronald_g_w]

First, you haven’t explained what it is about this point that proves (or disproves) the Great Apostacy. I’d like some explanation as to why you think Peter’s immediate successors are some link to the Apostacy of the early Church?

Second, there certainly is historical evidence of Peter and his successors in Rome. In addition to the physical presence of the remains of St. Peter under the basilica, there is also the writing of the early church fathers on the matter of Rome, Peter, and his successors. See here

What happened to ST JOHN he live for about 18 - 19 years after the martyrdom of Peter in which time three alleged bishops of Rome had and were serving the church. He was still the one recieving revelation where the bishops wern’t. This does not make scence as John was an Apostle called by Jesus himself and very much liked, surely the bishops were answerable to him as an Apostle and not him under the jurisdiction, and subordination of the bishops. With whom he must be in union, and in subjection to, in order to be in the fold of Christ !

To me this is the point of departure of the church into apostacy

 

[NewSeeker]

What happened to ST JOHN he live for about 18 - 19 years after the martyrdom of Peter in which time three alleged bishops of Rome had and were serving the church. He was still the one recieving revelation where the bishops wern’t. This does not make scence as John was an Apostle called by Jesus himself and very much liked, surely the bishops were answerable to him as an Apostle and not him under the jurisdiction, and subordination of the bishops. With whom he must be in union, and in subjection to, in order to be in the fold of Christ !

 

[Robert_in_SD]

What happened to ST JOHN he live for about 18 - 19 years after the martyrdom of Peter in which time three alleged bishops of Rome had and were serving the church. He was still the one recieving revelation where the bishops wern’t. This does not make scence as John was an Apostle called by Jesus himself and very much liked, surely the bishops were answerable to him as an Apostle and not him under the jurisdiction, and subordination of the bishops. With whom he must be in union, and in subjection to, in order to be in the fold of Christ !

 

[Robert_in_SD]

ronald g w;4418352:

How do you know the Roman bishops weren’t subject to him while he was alive? Just because there are no available correspondences between John and the Roman church doesn’t mean that Rome was in apostasy.

Moreover, you are assuming that Peter’s successors and the Apostles were somehow in contention. Where is the evidence that this occurred?

And if your logic holds true, and St. John should have succeeded to Peter’s position, then it would have followed that the oldest living successor would be the head of the Church. Such has never been the rule. Each Apostle appointed his successors. Peter appointed his. Peter’s successors received Peter’s bishopric, while the other Apostles could pass along only what they held, a bishopric that was subject to Peter’s bishopric. Certainly, this situation does not diminish the position of the Apostle John in Rome. He remained an Apostle and his doctrinal teaching remains part of the deposit of Faith that Peter’s successors are charged to maintain and pass along.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ronald_g_w]

NewSeeker;4418396:

Moreover, you are assuming that Peter’s successors and the Apostles were somehow in contention. Where is the evidence that this occurred?

And if your logic holds true, and St. John should have succeeded to Peter’s position, then it would have followed that the oldest living successor would be the head of the Church. Such has never been the rule. Each Apostle appointed his successors. Peter appointed his. Peter’s successors received Peter’s bishopric, while the other Apostles could pass along only what they held, a bishopric that was subject to Peter’s bishopric. Certainly, this situation does not diminish the position of the Apostle John in Rome. He remained an Apostle and his doctrinal teaching remains part of the deposit of Faith that Peter’s successors are charged to maintain and pass along.

Peace,
-Robert

Walk me through the steps as to how these keys are past on

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Walk me through the steps as to how these keys are past [sic] on

Why don’t you first explain to me where Peter’s successors and St. John had a falling away which somehow led to the Great Apostacy? After all, the Apostacy is the topic here… not succession.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ronald_g_w]

Why don’t you first explain to me where Peter’s successors and St. John had a falling away which somehow led to the Great Apostacy?

It is possible that I wont find it as I have never felt the need to look for it as it stands to reason to myself that the Apostles are the foundation that the Lords built his church upon and as such the authority remains with them.

After all, the Apostacy is the topic here… not succession.

Having said that the succession of the keys of the kingdom are vital to the topic at hand.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It is possible that I wont find it as I have never felt the need to look for it as it stands to reason to myself that the Apostles are the foundation that the Lords built his church upon and as such the authority remains with them…
Having said that the succession of the keys of the kingdom are vital to the topic at hand.

If you can’t find a break in the doctrinal issues in relation to St. John and the successors of Peter, why is the succession issue of vital importance with respect to this issue…

In a broader context, I agree that succession is vital, and it seems that the LDS Church cannot establish succession, nor has there been shown a need for a restoration, because none here have established the need for restoration vis a vis the alleged Great Apostacy. Rather, it seems that the GA is simply assumed, based on the actions of some popes, the heresies of some bishops, and the effects of Original Sin on members of the Church? So, please show me the basis for believing in the alleged GA.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[guanophore]

I’ve heard LDS members say they believed in the Great Apostacy, and that “protestant” church communities must also have believed in such an event. This statement seems contradictory to me. Let me explain:

When Joseph Smith asked what faith community he should join, he was told none of them, for they had completely apostatized. My understanding was that the Great Apostacy (that necessitated the restoration) was complete and total. (Am I correct in this or am I mistaken)

If the Great Apostacy was a complete rejection of the Gospel, then why would the reformers not be considered just another form of apostacy? If they are not, then did God attempt (but fail to attain) a restoration in 1500s Europe? Was it a partial restoration? Was it just further descent into error?

And if the reformation was not at least an attempt at a restoration, then why does the LDS Church trace its scriptural roots to the King James Version of the bible?

These are my thoughts, but can we start the discussion with an LDS definition of what is meant by the term “Great Apostacy?” Is it a total rejection of all truth? Is it something less than total rejection?

Peace,
-Robert

Are these points foundational to the LDS notion of Apostasy?

Really? In the OT, God spoke to the people through His chosen prophets. If those prophets had been like you, the Jews would have forgotten Sabbath observance a long time ago. God also appeared to Moses at Mt. Sinai. Did Moses note down that day so that every time it comes around he would let the people observe it?

Do what, meet on Sunday? They did not.

I think you are the one in error, not knowing the teaching of your church. Here is an excerpt from “What Is Catholicism?” by the Catholic priest John Redford:

“What has confused the whole question of Tradition is that it has become bound up with the controversy as to whether there are doctrines not contained in ANY WAY in Scripture… Some of the Council Fathers at Trent wished to insert the adverb partim…partim into the phrase, so making the text, ‘The Council clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained PARTLY in written books and PARTLY in unwritten traditions.’ This would have conveyed the meaning that Tradition contains some doctrines not in any way in Scripture. But the Tridentine Fathers DID NOT vote for the insertion of partim…partim.

“… it must not be allowed to obscure the fundamental point that essentially Tradition with a capital “T” is first and foremost the handing of the word of God in Jesus Christ in an unwritten form, PARALLEL, RATHER THAN IN ADDITION TO, the word of God in written form we call Scripture.”

In conclusion, Redford says: “Vatican II REFUSED to settle the question as to whether there are doctrines in Tradition that in no way are in Scripture.”

I do not see why I would have to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. My proposition was made based upon the CC’s acknowledgment of the Bible as the Word of God. If such is not the case, then I would have no business bringing the matter up with you.

Did God make the Sabbath only for the House of Israel?
Where is it in Scripture that the first day of the week came to be called “The Lord’s Day”?

Could you please provide the book, chapter, and verse so I can comment on it?

 

[ronald_g_w]

Originally Posted by Robert in SD
I’ve heard LDS members say they believed in the Great Apostacy, and that “protestant” church communities must also have believed in such an event. This statement seems contradictory to me. Let me explain:

When Joseph Smith asked what faith community he should join, he was told none of them, for they had completely apostatized. My understanding was that the Great Apostacy (that necessitated the restoration) was complete and total. (Am I correct in this or am I mistaken)

Having given some more thought to this post of yours, here are my thoughts:

Firstly I would like to look at the words given to JS. (JS Hist 1:19) “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” so YES from the above passage they were all wrong something that never entered JS thoughts or heart as he put it.

Posted by Robert: If the Great Apostacy was a complete rejection of the Gospel, then why would the reformers not be considered just another form of apostacy? If they are not, then did God attempt (but fail to attain) a restoration in 1500s Europe? Was it a partial restoration? Was it just further descent into error?

The apostacy does not need to be a complete rejection to be in place but with time the gap widens. I’ll explain further down why I say this.

Posted by Robert: why would the reformers not be considered just another form of apostacy?

They did their best with what they had, it is very difficult to restore somthing to its original form when the blue print is distorted. However they had their place in the restoration in that they got people to start thinking about what they were being taught and stired the hearts of men to seek truth, so YES you could say it was a partial restoration in preparation for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be restored in its fulness. Therefore there was no failed attempt by God in the 1500’s but an awakening to the things of the spirit.

Posted by Robert: And if the reformation was not at least an attempt at a restoration, then why does the LDS Church trace its scriptural roots to the King James Version of the bible?

Do not know exactlly what you are asking here, I do not know that our “roots” go back to the KJV other than that it was the scriptures that the Smith family used in their home and that it is believed to be the least tampered with ?

Posted by Robert: These are my thoughts, but can we start the discussion with an LDS definition of what is meant by the term “Great Apostacy?” Is it a total rejection of all truth? Is it something less than total rejection?

Peace,
-Robert

Let me share a thought that was taught by another.

In 1979 a large passenger jet with 257 people on board left New Zealand for a sightseeing flight to Antarctica and back. Unknown to the pilots, however, someone had modified the flight coordinates by a mere two degrees. This error placed the aircraft 28 miles (45 km) to the east of where the pilots assumed they were. As they approached Antarctica, the pilots descended to a lower altitude to give the passengers a better look at the landscape. Although both were experienced pilots, neither had made this particular flight before, and they had no way of knowing that the incorrect coordinates had placed them directly in the path of Mount Erebus, an active volcano that rises from the frozen landscape to a height of more than 12,000 feet (3,700 m).

As the pilots flew onward, the white of the snow and ice covering the volcano blended with the white of the clouds above, making it appear as though they were flying over flat ground. By the time the instruments sounded the warning that the ground was rising fast toward them, it was too late. The airplane crashed into the side of the volcano, killing everyone on board.

So you see Robert it does not need to be a total rejection of all truth in order for it to be off course and in need of a restoration.
Lets look at Genesis 3 and we see that satan tells a lie but then backs it up with a truth, this is all it tackes to put us on the road to APOSTACY wheather big or small it does not matter in both cases we will miss the station where we are suposed to get off.

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, cYea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (LIE)
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (TRUTH)

Gen. 3: 22
22 ¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

[Snow]

Each Apostle appointed his successors. Peter appointed his.

Could you walk me through the documentary evidence (historical, not tradition) that each of the 12 apostles appointed their own successors?

What’s the evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and that he personally appointed (depending which list you follow) Linus, Linus Cletus, Cletus Clement etc - historical evidence please, not mere tradition.

 

[NewSeeker]

Could you walk me through the documentary evidence (historical, not tradition) that each of the 12 apostles appointed their own successors?

Peter’s successors received Peter’s bishopric, while the other Apostles could pass along only what they held, a bishopric that was subject to Peter’s bishopric.

What’s the evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and that he personally appointed (depending which list you follow) Linus, Linus Cletus, Cletus Clement etc - historical evidence please, not mere tradition.

Snow - could you walk me through the documentary evidence (historical, not LDS tradition) that the Great Apostasy occurred?

What’s the evidence that Christ’s church fell away? I’m not interested whether such an event was predicted or whether NT writers (e.g.) mentioned that some fell away. I’m only interested in 1st and 2nd century, non-Biblical sources that describe a complete and total apostasy, including the moment the priesthood was taken from the earth.

Thank you.

NS

 

[Snow]

First, you haven’t explained what it is about this point that proves (or disproves) the Great Apostacy. I’d like some explanation as to why you think Peter’s immediate successors are some link to the Apostacy of the early Church?

1. There is no “PROOF” that there was, or wasn’t an apostasy. In my view, the apostasy is really a function of having (and losing) God-given authority to act in his name. Since authority is a faith-based, not a fact-based reality, any continuity or interruption in authority is a matter of faith, not proof.

However, we haven’t addressed your question very well, so later I’ll give an overview of my current thinking of what the apostasy consisted of.

Thank you for being patient.

Second, there certainly is historical evidence of Peter and his successors in Rome. In addition to the physical presence of the remains of St. Peter under the basilica, there is also the writing of the early church fathers on the matter of Rome, Peter, and his successors. See here and here for a more detailed treatment. But in general:

I think, or I have heard that there is some mounting belief by historians that Peter was likely in Rome. However, to my knowledge there is no historical consensus or evidence that while in Rome, he was the Bishop of Rome.

This question has been posed here dozens of times and so far no one has provided any historical evidence of Peter supposed monoepiscopal role in Rome. I say that’s because there is no such evidence.

History attests to the successors of Peter, within the Catholic faith. In addition, the declaration of orthodoxy and unity centered around the Roman See appears to contradict the LDS vision of a universally apostate and pagan Church.

Peace,
-Robert

This is a very simple matter. You say that history attests. Okay. Please post the historical (not Tradition) evidence that Peter appointed Linus as the monoepiscopal Bishop of Rome and that Linus appointed Cletus and Cletus Clement.

That would probably settle it.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s what one (among many who agree) says:

"Vatican propaganda notwithstanding, Peter was never the “bishop of Rome… The first man who can be designated “bishop of Rome” with historical certainty is Anicetus, who stands eleventh in the Vatican’s somewhat fanciful list of early “popes…” Thomas Cahill, Pope John XXIII, Penguin Books 2002, pp1-2

I have addressed it more fully here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4411372&postcount=61

and here:
Snow;4411501:

However, there is no evidence that Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics… Indeed, there is no evidence that Rome even had a monoepiscopal form of ecclesiatiscal government until the middle of the second century.” Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper Collins 1997, pp29-30

What type of "service’ do you think he did, if anything? Why would there be monoepiscopal form if there was more than one Apostle present?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4411375&postcount=62

On the Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession thread

So, who were the first 10, or 9 after Peter? I mean, none of them were bishops, or do you deny that there was sucession at ll?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Mormons do not worship Jesus.

Mormons do not believe Jesus is God.

This is what is known as heresy.

Despite they claim they read the bible, they are not Christians.
If they did read it, they apparently forgot when St. Thomas affirmed the faith of the Church (some call him doubting Thomas, but that is a negative way of looking at it)

John 20:28
Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.

nothing Mr. Joseph Smith can write can change the words of Scripture. Thank God.

Mormons, next time you go outside on your “missions” and try to talk to Christians, carry a big sign or wear a tie that says “We do not believe Jesus is God”. This would be a more honest approach then how they typically preach “their gospel”.