How to refute the Great Apostosy

[Eucharisted]

"Doctrine changed after the Apostles died"

The first argument you’ll come against is that shortly after the death of the Apostles, doctrine changed. That is, things were introduced into Christianity which weren’t there when the Apostles were around. But this is easily refuted. All you have to do is reference Scriptures. For example, show the verses in Acts about “breaking of the bread” to prove that the Eucharist was celebrated by the Apostles and is not a new doctrine. Or, show the verse in Acts about the Apostles appointing presbyters to prove that apostolic succession and hierarcy were established during the Apostles’ lives.

"Our church has Apostles, where are your Apostles?"

The second argument you’ll come against is that the Catholic Church dosen’t have any Apostles, so it is apostosized. Just point to the verses in Scriptures which show the Apostles appointed presbyters to suceed them and to serve the faithful in particular churches. The Apostles were suceeded by the presbyters (ancient term for bishops), so any church without bishops is not apostolic and only proves that it, and not the Catholic Church, is apostosized.

On the contrary, in fact, the Apostle Paul warns against false apostles, men who masquerade as Apostles. You may use this to prove that the so-called “living Apostles” are frauds.

"Paul and Barnabas were also called Apostles"

The third argument you’ll come against is that there were more than Twelve Apostles, as if to show that other Apostles existed alongside the presbyters and so apostolic succession is illogical. But this is an easy mistake. “Apostle” has two meanings in the Bible: Office and action. The office of Apostleship was exclusively given to the Twelve by Jesus Christ when He gave them the keys of the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven. The action of being an apostle - that is, one sent on a mission - means, basically, a missionary, and the first among apostles is Jesus Christ, for He was sent by the Father on the mission to redeem mankind, and other noted apostles in the Bible include Paul, whom Christ sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (“Apostle to the Gentiles”), and Barnabas, whom went along with Paul on his mission of preaching the gospel.

"Where are your prophets and where is the Pope?"

The fourth argument you’ll come against is that the Church has no more prophets and that the office of Pope isn’t biblical. While the Church dose come before the Bible, it is enough to refute this argument with Scriptures. For the Scriptures show that one gift of the Holy Spirit is prophesy, and Jesus promised His Apostles that the Spirit of Truth would lead them into all truths, and His promise came true on Pentecost, and He further promised that He would be with them always, even unto the end of the ages (e.g., “the end of the world”). Now, if Christ’s promise of the Spirit came true, than His promise of never leaving the Church can be believed to be true too, especially in light of His identity as the Truth, and, moreover, if the Spirit is always with the Church, than the gift of prophesy is likewise always with the Church - and it is not necessary to even list saints with the gift of prophesy, although if you wish to do so, it will only harm the credibility of the arguer, who will not be able to give substantial proof that his church has true prophets.

On the contrary, in fact, Jesus Christ warns against false prophets and false messiahs, saying a bad tree bears bad fruit. You may use this to prove that the so-called “prophets” are liars and decievers.

As for the office of the Pope, just point to the verses wherein Jesus calls Peter a shepherd ("tend my flock, “feed my shep”). Jesus would certainly know what a shepherd is. And the term shepherd is used not only for the bishops but especially for the Pope, who is a vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd. This is made clear by Peter laying down his life for the Christians in Rome.

"But you aren’t even Christian!"

The fifth argument you’ll come against is that Catholics aren’t Christians, because they’re members of the “Roman Catholic Church”. But the early disciples called themselves Christians, as testified in the Scriptures, and, if, as the rest of the arguments show, the Church has not apostisized, than Catholics are indeed Christians, and it would be wrong to call them otherwise. Moreover, the term “Roman Catholic Church” is incorrect: there are many rites and churches in the Church, not just a Roman rite and church, and the Church is, by Christ’s words to preach to all nations and by the fact that the Apostles were able to speak in tongues, an universal Church, so the correct term is Catholic Church.

"Our church worships God"

The last argument you’ll come against is that Catholics are idol worshippers and do not worship God. Point to the verses in Scriptures which show Catholics worshipped God and believe in one God, and explain the difference between veneration and adoration, how the former is honor and the latter is service, and between prayer and intercession, how the former is directed to God and how the latter is asking the saints to pray for us. You may even show that the arguer is, actually, guilty of idoltry, not the Catholic, and this depends on what organization they belong to: If Mormon, than point out that Mormons believe a man became God just as they believe men become gods after death, and this is polytheism; if a Jehovah Witness, than point out that God says His Name is I AM forever, not Jehovah, and this is a mistranslation of His Name; if a Protestant of one of the many denominations that do not believe in the Eucharist, than point out that Jesus showed He is the Eucharist multiple times, even using the ancient symbols for the Eucharist (bread and fish) when the Apostles met Him on the shore of Lake Galilee, and so they do not worship Jesus but a piece of bread that they claim represents Jesus.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I point out to Mormonoids that the church described as “great and abominable over all the churches” is the Morminoid Chuch–Utah or Independence–and various sub-schisms.

The “precious promises” it cuts out are the teachings of the fathers and Apocrypha.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

"Doctrine changed after the Apostles died"

The first argument you’ll come against is that shortly after the death of the Apostles, doctrine changed. That is, things were introduced into Christianity which weren’t there when the Apostles were around. But this is easily refuted. All you have to do is reference Scriptures. For example, show the verses in Acts about “breaking of the bread” to prove that the Eucharist was celebrated by the Apostles and is not a new doctrine. Or, show the verse in Acts about the Apostles appointing presbyters to prove that apostolic succession and hierarcy were established during the Apostles’ lives.

"Our church has Apostles, where are your Apostles?"

The second argument you’ll come against is that the Catholic Church dosen’t have any Apostles, so it is apostosized. Just point to the verses in Scriptures which show the Apostles appointed presbyters to suceed them and to serve the faithful in particular churches. The Apostles were suceeded by the presbyters (ancient term for bishops), so any church without bishops is not apostolic and only proves that it, and not the Catholic Church, is apostosized.

On the contrary, in fact, the Apostle Paul warns against false apostles, men who masquerade as Apostles. You may use this to prove that the so-called “living Apostles” are frauds.

"Paul and Barnabas were also called Apostles"

The third argument you’ll come against is that there were more than Twelve Apostles, as if to show that other Apostles existed alongside the presbyters and so apostolic succession is illogical. But this is an easy mistake. “Apostle” has two meanings in the Bible: Office and action. The office of Apostleship was exclusively given to the Twelve by Jesus Christ when He gave them the keys of the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven. The action of being an apostle - that is, one sent on a mission - means, basically, a missionary, and the first among apostles is Jesus Christ, for He was sent by the Father on the mission to redeem mankind, and other noted apostles in the Bible include Paul, whom Christ sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (“Apostle to the Gentiles”), and Barnabas, whom went along with Paul on his mission of preaching the gospel.

"Where are your prophets and where is the Pope?"

The fourth argument you’ll come against is that the Church has no more prophets and that the office of Pope isn’t biblical. While the Church dose come before the Bible, it is enough to refute this argument with Scriptures. For the Scriptures show that one gift of the Holy Spirit is prophesy, and Jesus promised His Apostles that the Spirit of Truth would lead them into all truths, and His promise came true on Pentecost, and He further promised that He would be with them always, even unto the end of the ages (e.g., “the end of the world”). Now, if Christ’s promise of the Spirit came true, than His promise of never leaving the Church can be believed to be true too, especially in light of His identity as the Truth, and, moreover, if the Spirit is always with the Church, than the gift of prophesy is likewise always with the Church - and it is not necessary to even list saints with the gift of prophesy, although if you wish to do so, it will only harm the credibility of the arguer, who will not be able to give substantial proof that his church has true prophets.

On the contrary, in fact, Jesus Christ warns against false prophets and false messiahs, saying a bad tree bears bad fruit. You may use this to prove that the so-called “prophets” are liars and decievers.

As for the office of the Pope, just point to the verses wherein Jesus calls Peter a shepherd ("tend my flock, “feed my shep”). Jesus would certainly know what a shepherd is. And the term shepherd is used not only for the bishops but especially for the Pope, who is a vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd. This is made clear by Peter laying down his life for the Christians in Rome.

"But you aren’t even Christian!"

The fifth argument you’ll come against is that Catholics aren’t Christians, because they’re members of the “Roman Catholic Church”. But the early disciples called themselves Christians, as testified in the Scriptures, and, if, as the rest of the arguments show, the Church has not apostisized, than Catholics are indeed Christians, and it would be wrong to call them otherwise. Moreover, the term “Roman Catholic Church” is incorrect: there are many rites and churches in the Church, not just a Roman rite and church, and the Church is, by Christ’s words to preach to all nations and by the fact that the Apostles were able to speak in tongues, an universal Church, so the correct term is Catholic Church.

"Our church worships God"

The last argument you’ll come against is that Catholics are idol worshippers and do not worship God. Point to the verses in Scriptures which show Catholics worshipped God and believe in one God, and explain the difference between veneration and adoration, how the former is honor and the latter is service, and between prayer and intercession, how the former is directed to God and how the latter is asking the saints to pray for us. You may even show that the arguer is, actually, guilty of idoltry, not the Catholic, and this depends on what organization they belong to: …

What’s the point of this thread and why are you posting this on the non-Catholic part of the forum. Wouldn’t it be more apropriate for Apologetics or some other site directed at Catholics.

 

[ricko]

What’s the point of this thread and why are you posting this on the non-Catholic part of the forum. Wouldn’t it be more apropriate for Apologetics or some other site directed at Catholics.

Maybe. But a lot of apologetic work is done in the non-Catholic forum and most non-Catholics come to this forum.

I find that Eucharisted has done a great service by the post. The Mormons that are here are well versed and trained and unless I am familiar with the subject at hand I have a hard time keeping up.

 

[vppoole]

Thank you for posting this! One argument that I have developed is in claiming that the theory of the Great Apostasy rests on a tautology–or a “heads I win, tails you lose” spin on history. I apologize for the length, but I think this reveals their misreading of history as “faith”, of which I think many Mormons are not aware.

For instance, although they believe that the “original” Church until the last Apostle (John) died was Mormon and taught Mormon truths, they also believe that the pre-corrupted doctrine during the Age of the Apostles would differ from present day Mormon doctrine. They admit this because they believe that doctrine changes as God speaks through the prophets. They will cite obscure passages (like 1 Samuel 15: 3) in the Old Testament to “prove” that the Mosaic teaching of “Thou shalt not kill” changed under the Prophet Samuel (but to no avail if you have a commentary and do some exegesis).

And so this begs the question “what historical evidence from antiquity would need to exist to disprove the Mormon belief in the Great Apostasy?” None, because from their perspective it’s safely guarded in a logic trap.

Heads I win: If undoubtable historical evidence listed the doctrine of the Apostolic Age and found it to have strong similarities to current LDS doctrine, then they would see it as confirming the LDS faith as the true faith.

Tails you lose: If historical evidence showed that the Apostles had a different doctrine than that of the current LDS faith, then, in their eyes, that would still not disprove the Mormon faith–it would only confirm their belief that doctrine changes.

Nevertheless, I think the historical silence (from early Christians and non-Christians alike) on claims of the LDS faith (such as the Great Apostasy and Jesus visiting the Native Americans) imply that Mormons do the same thing that Dan Brown did with history in the Da Vinci Code, which is taking a perceived gap in history and inserting a plausible story as fact and/or doctrine. Not all plausible things actually happened. Mormon doctrine does not work with history. It escapes it.

The bottom line: Prophets can foresee future events, but they cannot rewrite history. Mormonism seriously lacks any unbiased historical evidence to support its foundational claims, especially regarding the Great Apostasy. Believing that your beliefs can’t possibly be wrong is not true faith; believing God can’t be wrong when He promises to be with His Church and to guide us always takes true faith, hope, and love.

Pax!

 

[Arandur]

Interesting.

There are a lot of other things as well.

Find out what evidence they try to use to support this idea. You’ve identified some of them and why they’re wrong. Sometimes their “evidence” is implicit in their claims of the consequences of the Great Apostasy.

For instance, they claim that priesthood authority was revoked from the church on earth. Problem is, every other time a priesthood authority was revoked that we know of, God explicitly made that known to His people immediately. Where was that explicit event? And even when He did that, He always provided for some valid authority in their place before. You cannot find a time in Scripture where there is definitively not a proper, authoritative, continuous, recognizeable body of God’s people on earth. This is particularly clear after Abraham, but clearly implied beforehand with the stories of Noah and then the existence of Melchizedek. So why did everything fail ambiguously now, after Jesus?

That brings me to a common problem with anyone that doubts the Catholic Church. To say that God’s Church failed is to do much more than just say that Hell has prevailed against the Church that Christ himself said he would build. It is also to claim that for the first time in history, despite Christ having completed his Saving Work, despite him sending the Holy Spirit to his people in a way that we humans have never had before, God let His people fail more disastrously than ever before–they had the full truth for the first time and they lost it. The Mormons say there wasn’t even an identifiable remnant (most other sects claim they are part of the proper remnant).

For that failure to happen, you must blaspheme against God and Christ, because you must identify Jesus as the villain in his own parables. You must laugh at him and call him the Fool who did not count the cost of the tower he was constructing and could not finish it. You must call him a weak man who cannot protect his house. You must call him a Fool for building on sand and not on hard rock (though, of course, Christ tells us clearly how he’s building on a Rock). You must call him a liar in these parables, and an oathbreaker for abandoning us. You must call him the Bad Shepherd for not looking after his flock, but letting the wolves consume it. You must call him an adulterer or divorcer for abandoning his Bride. You must claim he is not truly resurrected for his Body has died. And among all that, it seems you must also impute malice for him to have led us so astray, and to leave us without a true church for over a thousand years, without even telling us we had lost the true church.

This is why I find accusations of the failure of the Church, and particularly the Great Apostasy, extremely offensive and sacrilegious. What can be more deceptive, more satanically-inspired, more heinously blasphemous than to effectively turn almost every good thing about Jesus upside down and call him the opposite?

Another common evidence or effect of the Great Apostasy that you often hear is the end of continuing revelation. Beware of this and other circular reasonings. They assume their own conclusion. They assume that their own definition of continuing revelation is correct in order to assume that continuing revelation ended, thus giving us an apostasy.

In fact, as vppoole pointed out, you must beware of many** “logic traps”** or instances of false logic. Most positions about the Great Apostasy are based on logical fallacies. In addition to circular reasoning, you’ll often hear non sequiturs citing warnings or descriptions of partial apostasies and claims that they are total apostasies.

Arguments that demonstrate disputes among groups about proper teachings, as well as those that warn of false teachings and falling away, cannot be interpreted as meaning a total apostasy unless they say so. This is a non sequiter variously involving the more specific argumentative fallacies of generalization, assumptions from small numbers, selective observation/reading, extended analogy, least plausible hypothesis, and probably others.

It’s really pretty sad that so many people believe something so completely and easily demonstrated to be untrue.

 

[Hisalone]

What’s the point of this thread and why are you posting this on the non-Catholic part of the forum. Wouldn’t it be more apropriate for Apologetics or some other site directed at Catholics.

Exactly

 

[Religio71]

I agree with all of this.

LDS refer to various verses in the Bible and attempt to prove their beliefs. For example, they will frequently refer to various verses in the Bible that refer to God having a hand or feet or being seen, etc. (can’t remember exactly), and say that that is proof that God has a body. LDS believe that both God the Father and Jesus Christ have bodies of flesh and bone, and they use those verses to prove it. I guess God also has a body that is a door too.

Many of the doctrines that LDS currently believe were “revealed” much later, and have no evidence in Biblical times. For example, LDS believe that you must by sealed to your wife/husband, be Endowed, etc. to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Sealings for time and eternity are found nowhere in the Bible, or early Christian history.

LDS also believe that the form of the Eucharist, bread and wine, can change, and that you don’t need to use either really. So, because of a revelation, they now use bread and water. Over on one LDS forum, there was a thread that said you could use oreos and milk, and that people in the military sometimes use rations. Now, maybe oreos and milk was a joke, but it is clear that one does not have to use bread and wine, as water can now be used.

LDS also believe that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit children of the Father, as the Father “created” or begot in the case of Jesus (…) all of us, including Jesus Christ and Lucifer. So we are all related to Jesus and Lucifer.

Another belief found nowhere in early Christianity or the Bible is that there was a Council of Gods that discussed the plan of salvation of the Father, where Jesus (also known as Jehovah) decided to be the Savior, and would allow people to have free will (agency) to choose. Lucifer wanted to be the Savior, but he wanted people to be forced to choose him, therefore all would be saved. I’m sure you can guess how this ends.

Finally, another belief is that God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother. Now, LDS don’t pray to her or worship her, however she does exist to them, and is, together with the Father, the model for the exaltation of the LDS. A Heavenly Mother is found nowhere in the early Christian or Biblical understanding of the Divine.

 

[Eucharisted]

"Where are your prophets and where is the Pope?"

The fourth argument you’ll come against is that the Church has no more prophets and that the office of Pope isn’t biblical. While the Church dose come before the Bible, it is enough to refute this argument with Scriptures. For the Scriptures show that one gift of the Holy Spirit is prophesy, and Jesus promised His Apostles that the Spirit of Truth would lead them into all truths, and His promise came true on Pentecost, and He further promised that He would be with them always, even unto the end of the ages (e.g., “the end of the world”). Now, if Christ’s promise of the Spirit came true, than His promise of never leaving the Church can be believed to be true too, especially in light of His identity as the Truth, and, moreover, if the Spirit is always with the Church, than the gift of prophesy is likewise always with the Church - and it is not necessary to even list saints with the gift of prophesy, although if you wish to do so, it will only harm the credibility of the arguer, who will not be able to give substantial proof that his church has true prophets.

On the contrary, in fact, Jesus Christ warns against false prophets and false messiahs, saying a bad tree bears bad fruit. You may use this to prove that the so-called “prophets” are liars and decievers.

As for the office of the Pope, just point to the verses wherein Jesus calls Peter a shepherd ("tend my flock, “feed my shep”). Jesus would certainly know what a shepherd is. And the term shepherd is used not only for the bishops but especially for the Pope, who is a vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd. This is made clear by Peter laying down his life for the Christians in Rome.