LDS View of the Great Apostasy

[KathleenGee]

The new spin coming out the past several years…shocking insight!!!..is that Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church!

All he did was sign the Edict of Milan stating that Christianity is now legal and Sunday is day of rest for all subjects. He did not become a Christian until a few days before his death.

Yes…where is the historical documentation proving the Great Apostasy came about by 100 AD and Constantine now starting the Catholic Church…?..?..

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is from my perspective and studies. I have not only studied from LDS sources but from Non LDS sources. I do not want to disrespect, and if I do I apologize first off.

The apostacy did not just occur after the death of the last apostle. It was taking place during the ministry of the apostles. When they would go to a city and convert jews to the gospel, they set up a organization there. But many times because of communications they were left to themselves with only the old law. There was not bible or New testiment to study and glean truths from. This is why Paul wrote letters of correction to the different cities. But you can imagine that Paul could not address all the concerns, and could not correct fast enough. So jewish traditions and outside influences crept in.

    When the apostles were killed off faster than they could replace them, the apostacy sped up. For a couple of hunderd years after the death of the last apostle, there was still not a combined book of the New Testament. You had parts of the written gospel here and there. I am not saying that those who in apostacy were evil doers, but that they were doing their best with what they had. The gosple message was so good, and so strong that even though I believe that it had started to be distorted and truths had been lost or replace that it still brought people together. It united people. It caused them to be better than they were. But because I believe that authority to act in Gods name left with the last of the apostles, the whole earth tumbled into the dark ages. For centuries little or no progress was made. Men in power desires were not to improve the people as a whole but only about them gaining more power and control. Under this setting came Constantine. A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force. And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this. Because of this, wars were started in the name of Christ. There was such a control over the people that if there were differing views about religion, they were either banned or killed. This was a great motivator follow oners leaders. 

    This is a very brief overview, and I am sure that you have heard this many times. This is my view.

I will address one of the views about why I believe Catholics believe there is a unbroken link. I will go to the first prophet of the church after the death of Christ. Peter. The scriptures teach that Christ was asking his disciples who men thought he was. Some said that he was Elijah, or an Elias, or some said he was John the Baptist. But Christ said who do you think it is I am… Peter stated that,“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Christ said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonah, For flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.

He is my understanding. Peter did not know that Jesus was the Christ because Jesus told him so. At that time Jesus was flesh and blood. And as much as someone can tell another truth, as someone here has said, they really do not know 100% that it is true. But Jesus said that through personal revelation from the Father that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ.

   Jesus then went on to say that "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" In my view Christ was not refering to Peter as the rock. But the rock that gave Peter the understanding that Jesus is the Christ. Christ would not build his church on the arm of the flesh, because we know not long after this Peter denied the very Christ and Savior of the world. Not once, but three times. Christ stated that the very gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Again my understanding is that the Gates of Hell are the gates that hold the dead in. Once the gospel has been accepted, and the resurrection has taken place, the gates that hold the dead will be open and make it possible that a reuniting of the spirits and bodies takes place.

That is my understanding of this.

Conspiracy theories.

 

[Quaesitor]

But the rock that gave Peter the understanding that Jesus is the Christ.

WHAT? Okay, don’t understand your logic here. Do you think some rock fell from the sky and knocked Peter upside the head? Or is it your understanding that some rock suddenly start speaking to Peter?

I don’t know what you are saying? That sentence, to me, is awkward which is why I guess I’m seeing it differently then what you must mean.

 

[xCelticx]

Just my 2 cents if i may…

The main reason why the LDS church doesn’t put a specific date on the “Great Apostasy” is because it didn’t occur on just one single day or month or year. It’s pretty much an unwritten theology that the “Great Apostasy” was completed at the time of the Nicene Creed A.D. 325. It was little disagreements here and there that caused the eventual withdrawl of the Holy Ghost from the church.

Persecutions were a big factor. We all know the stories of Nero and Domitian with their tortures and cruel executions so I won’t recount the tales. However, it should be noted that there were many Christians that fell to martyrdom during these reigns. In fact we know that through a letter written by the church of Lyons and Vienne, in Gaul, sent to their fellow Christians in Phrygia and Asia Minor, that there were many Christians in the dungeons and some would even suffocate before being “tried” by the executioners. These Christians died for their faith in Christ. But many denied also.

Then there is Gnosticism, which by all accounts, was pretty close to destroying Christianity. The Gnostics tried to “explain” salvation and Jesus Christ. Saying that God was infinite but that Jesus Christ is a creation and once had a beginning.

Then came Marcion, whom after the church decided was doctrinally false, created his own church and led many away.

Thus came the creeds and counsils, which if i might add, the Bishop of Rome was not at the Council of Nicea, he was too old so he sent his disciples. I just think its interesting that the church would make such a doctrinally important statement regarding the trinity without the physical presence of the Bishop of Rome. Also, I would also like it noted that at the head of the Council of Nicea was Constantine himself, who was still not a Christian yet, believed in God but also still made sacrifices to the pagan gods. He just liked God because through his “sign” he was able to become emperor. Grant it the Arian controversy was stemmed a few centuries back when the early church members were called “ignorant atheists” because they had no visible gods. Thus the nature of god became a stone of stumbling. Anyways, Arius brought forth his idea of God in hopes that Constantine would rule in his favor. Constantine doesn’t but he has 2 sons who are Arians and 1 son who is “orthodox”. its also noted that Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia…who was an Arian. thus the Arian controversy last a few more centuries. Thats when the church decided to use the word “Catholic”, meaning universal. But where is the Pope at the Council of Nicea? (this is my own question)

There’s many more things that I can say that would lead an LDS member to believe in the “Great Apostasy” but i don’t want to bore you. Also many Catholics can claim that this doesn’t lead to apostasy at all but is a continuation of truth through blasphemous times. Who’s right or who’s wrong, who knows. At least you have one thing in common, you both think you’re right.

 

[SpeSalvi]

Fat boys, I’m actually pretty impressed with your efforts to explain what you as an LDS person believes (although, as it has been pointed out, isn’t exactly what the LDS Church believes). The difficult thing here is that Catholics, pesky as we are, are pretty spoiled by how clearly our beliefs, duties, and history are defined. It’s difficult, as a Catholic, to believe that someone would bet the fate of their soul on a religion that has a relatively murky past, especially without putting some solid research in first.

As someone that was raised LDS and still has a lot of love for the people of the LDS Church (and who fought Catholicism tooth and nail for several years), I’m going to let you know that this one isn’t win-able. Throughout all the research, praying, and fasting I did,I could never figure out how LDS doctrine could be correct concerning the apostasy and the ‘rock’ issue. For years, I just took it “on faith” and tried to trust that there was an answer beyond my understanding. In short,I did my best to just not try to logically work it out because it really bothered me that I felt doubt at all. It was a heavy burden my heart carried- and ignored- for a long, long time.

I feel humbled and very fortunate to understand now that God doesn’t ask you to completely defy what your heart and mind are telling you. That God’s word is totally available to- and understandable by all. We must remember that God is not the author of confusion. In His Church, all is clear and able to be supported by history and a rock-solid theology.

 

[twopekinguys]

Fatboys,

Let me give you a little bit more friendly advice.

When you make a claim, or a statement, and someone asks for a reference or source, I would strongly recommend that you provide it.

If the mods get wind of you not providing it, your time here will be short lived.

I have noticed on this thread, as well as another, that you have been asked for references/sources for more than one of your statements.

You might want to start providing links or something, before you can’t.

Just trying to help a brotha out.

 

[Methos]

When the apostles were killed off faster than they could replace them, the apostacy sped up. For a couple of hunderd years after the death of the last apostle, there was still not a combined book of the New Testament. You had parts of the written gospel here and there. I am not saying that those who in apostacy were evil doers, but that they were doing their best with what they had. The gosple message was so good, and so strong that even though I believe that it had started to be distorted and truths had been lost or replace that it still brought people together. It united people. It caused them to be better than they were. But because I believe that authority to act in Gods name left with the last of the apostles, the whole earth tumbled into the dark ages. For centuries little or no progress was made.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Just my 2 cents if i may…

The main reason why the LDS church doesn’t put a specific date on the “Great Apostasy” is because it didn’t occur on just one single day or month or year. It’s pretty much an unwritten theology that the “Great Apostasy” was completed at the time of the Nicene Creed A.D. 325. It was little disagreements here and there that caused the eventual withdrawl of the Holy Ghost from the church.

I guarantee you that the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the Church. We don’t manufacture these miracles ourselves.

 

[Porknpie]

its also noted that Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia…who was an Arian. thus the Arian controversy last a few more centuries. Thats when the church decided to use the word “Catholic”, meaning universal. But where is the Pope at the Council of Nicea? (this is my own question).

Celtic -

There is a lot to respond to in your thread and its late for me. The Church was first called “Catholic” by St Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. Why? The word Catholic was used to define the true Christians from the false ones. A few quotes from scripturecatholic.com below. This written record of the early church is robust. The thought of there being a great apostasy is a false one. The early church does not speak of it nor does any other source. Catholics ask for facts and not false speculation. IMHO, to speak of a great apostasy in absence of any evidence is to break the 8th commandment against giving false witness.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, ** wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110)**.

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

 

[Janderich]

Under this setting came Constantine. A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force. And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this.

Let me try and provide a few sources on Constantine. However, I give this from what I have reacently read as anyone may do.

It seems that Constantine is at best a mixed bag. First it is not quite clear how fully he personally embraced Christianity. At the battle of Milvian Bridge it is said he had a vision in which he was directed to place the symbol of the cross on his soldiers shields. Lactantius says Constantine was commanded to, “delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers” (On the Deaths of the Persecutors 44.5). Eusebius indicates that in a dream Christ tells him to use a sign against his enimies. However, the sign is the Chi Rho not the cross. (see Eusebius, Life of Constantine). It appears that some claim that through this vision he bacame christian. However history is clear that he was not baptized until he was on his death bed. (Eusebius, Vita Const. 4. 61-62; Jerome, Chron.ad annum 2353.) Moreover, after this occurance he latter sufficates his wife in an overheated bath (Aur. Vict. Epit. 41.11-12) and then has his son Crispus executed (Eutropius 10.6.3). If he is a Christian he is a poor Christian in deed.

It appears I have run out of time. I’ll have to add more later.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Let me try and provide a few sources on Constantine. However, I give this from what I have reacently read as anyone may do.

It seems that Constantine is at best a mixed bag. First it is not quite clear how fully he personally embraced Christianity. At the battle of Milvian Bridge it is said he had a vision in which he was directed to place the symbol of the cross on his soldiers shields. Lactantius says Constantine was commanded to, “delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers” (On the Deaths of the Persecutors 44.5). Eusebius indicates that in a dream Christ tells him to use a sign against his enimies. However, the sign is the Chi Rho not the cross. (see Eusebius, Life of Constantine). It appears that some claim that through this vision he bacame christian. However history is clear that he was not baptized until he was on his death bed. (Eusebius, Vita Const. 4. 61-62; Jerome, Chron.ad annum 2353.) Moreover, after this occurance he latter sufficates his wife in an overheated bath (Aur. Vict. Epit. 41.11-12) and then has his son Crispus executed (Eutropius 10.6.3). If he is a Christian he is a poor Christian in deed.

It appears I have run out of time. I’ll have to add more later.

Hope so because judging Constantine’s Christianity does not in the least address this statement by Fatboys:

And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this.

 

[Stephen168]

Hope so because judging Constantine’s Christianity does not in the least address this statement by Fatboys:

It seems that Janderich has proved Fatboy wrong when Fatboy claimed Constantine became Christian because Constantine was:

A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force.

 

[pablope]

Let me try and provide a few sources on Constantine. However, I give this from what I have reacently read as anyone may do.

It seems that Constantine is at best a mixed bag. First it is not quite clear how fully he personally embraced Christianity. At the battle of Milvian Bridge it is said he had a vision in which he was directed to place the symbol of the cross on his soldiers shields. Lactantius says Constantine was commanded to, “delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers” (On the Deaths of the Persecutors 44.5). Eusebius indicates that in a dream Christ tells him to use a sign against his enimies. However, the sign is the Chi Rho not the cross. (see Eusebius, Life of Constantine).

 

[SpeSalvi]

All Constantine did for the Christian world is make it illegal to feed them to the lions. His own personal conversion didn’t happen until much later. Turning the attention to him seems like an awfully red herring.

 

[tundramom]

When the missionaries brought over a DVD of Elder Holland’s opus from a few years ago, they were astonished that I didn’t fall for it hook, line and sinker. His talk of Constantine and the snickers from the crowd in General Conference over the trinity just proved to me that my decision to leave and my subsequent conversion first to protestantism and then home to Rome was exactly what God had planned for me.

Steph

 

[twopekinguys]

It seems that Janderich has proved Fatboy wrong when Fatboy claimed Constantine became Christian because Constantine was:

Perfect illustration of one of the MAJOR problems with mormonism.

Everybody has their own “opinion” on everything. Their really isn’t any centralized teaching.

 

[Jack_726]

Let me try and provide a few sources on Constantine. However, I give this from what I have reacently read as anyone may do.

Moreover, after this occurance he latter sufficates his wife in an overheated bath (Aur. Vict. Epit. 41.11-12) and then has his son Crispus executed (Eutropius 10.6.3). If he is a Christian he is a poor Christian in deed.

It appears I have run out of time. I’ll have to add more later.

Crispus was Constantine’s favorite and next in line. When Constantine returned from a campaign,his new young wife, Fausta, told him that Crispus had attempted to seduce her whereupon Crispus was put to death. Constantine’s mother, Helena, told Constantine that Fausta had lied and that Crispus had rejected her advances. Constantine had Fausta boiled alive in her steam bath. Helena, who was a Christian, then told Constantine that he could partially atone for the death of Crispus by allowing her to establish Christian churches throughout the empire. Among the churches she built was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 326. In effect, a wife’s infidellity and a mother’s religious fervor brought about the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire and the Western World. That’s the way God works.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jack…

Agree here.

You will not find in the universal catechism anything much about Constantine’s history. He simply made the practice of Christianity legal…He was not baptized until days before his death.

By all means, Constantine was a temporal ruler, a shrewd emperor who battled and overcame the two last Roman emperors who were the most brutal with the exception of Nero, in liquidating the Christians, as well as killing many bishops and destroying churches.

Constantine did help in identifying leadership among Christians that facilitated in the choosing of new bishops, as well as rebuilding many churches. The designs changed from the former with a higher placed altar so all communicants could attend Mass better, as well as the pulpit up higher to proclaim the gospel, all designs giving greater glory to Christ and the spreading of the Good News.

The universal Catholic Catechism explains the foundation of Catholicism, which is that Christ lived, died and resurrected for the atonement of sin and for us to have life in abundance. Christ fulfilled all revelation to become the living Revelation we encounter in the Word and Eucharist to have new life and to become new creatures to the point of being adopted sons and daughters.

We do not realize how profound one single sin is and its effect on our soul in our relationship with God. Only God can forgive sin.

If anything, the world is facing a great loss of faith today. I attended a retreat this past weekend. The priest said that European culture is essentially at its roots Catholic.

And the 2 world wars of the last century were ones of ideology…that what people in Europe want is a simple life devoid of any ideology. The Protestant Reformation, – intending to reform the Church, – instead dismantled and fractured Christianity and with it the family as foundation of society, with Protestant’s concession for divorce…and faith no longer binding as the universal Church’s is.

Likewise with the dismantling of Christianity by turning to personal interpretation, condemned by St. Peter and the apostles, were geopolitical movements that allowed people’s faith to be less transcendent – and more nationalistic and factious. The military means to deal with the fracturing of faith brought permanent divisions.

In the USA, we now have a most shattered Christianity, the model as such bearing no witness as there is no communion of one in the Lord. We have 42,000 Christian sects, and the interpretation of the Bible to bring us various forms and dimensions of the prosperity gospel…all for our temporal well being and worldly prosperity.

You find the ideas of an early apostasy coming from the Mormons and certain anti-Catholic Baptists sects that all can never identify when the event of the apostasy even happened…Now on this thread it is pointing to the Nicene Creed…which was defining the Lord as One…again this concept of communion. The Nicene Creed further defined the nature of God to prevent the concept that Christ had a beginning and an end …for this would have led to polytheism as we find in Mormonism, and the slide back into paganism and man worship.

The Nicene Creed had to be defined to prevent Christianity from falling back into polytheism and eventual paganism…which exists to serve the nature and glory of man, a creature.

For Catholics vs evangelical and other forms of Christianity in America, our goal is not the prosperity gospel or we being affirmed for picking and choosing our own personal interpretation of the Word of God and how it profits us and our temporal life.

Rather, Catholics see as our goal of coming to Christ and through Christ coming into communion with the Holy Trinity in this life…that will be brought to glory in the next.

To seek communion with God through Jesus Christ as our ultimate goal in daily living cannot in any way be a reflection of apostasy.

Rather those who deny this reality of communion with God and seek other than this goal I would say is definitely of some form of heresy or form of apostasy…rejecting communion with God for things of the earth.

 

[Janderich]

Let me try and provide a few sources on Constantine. However, I give this from what I have recently read as anyone may do.

It seems that Constantine is at best a mixed bag. First it is not quite clear how fully he personally embraced Christianity. At the battle of Milvian Bridge it is said he had a vision in which he was directed to place the symbol of the cross on his soldiers shields. Lactantius says Constantine was commanded to, “delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers” (On the Deaths of the Persecutors 44.5). Eusebius indicates that in a dream Christ tells him to use a sign against his enemies. However, the sign is the Chi Rho not the cross. (see Eusebius, Life of Constantine). It appears that some claim that through this vision he became Christian. However history is clear that he was not baptized until he was on his death bed. (Eusebius, Vita Const. 4. 61-62; Jerome, Chron.ad annum 2353.) Moreover, after this occurrence he latter suffocates his wife in an overheated bath (Aur. Vict. Epit. 41.11-12) and then has his son Crispus executed (Eutropius 10.6.3). If he is a Christian he is a poor Christian in deed.

It appears I have run out of time. I’ll have to add more later.

While Constantine did not obey basic Christian commandments himself, he heavily supported Christianity throughout his rule. He issued the Edict of Milan which allowed, “That each one should have the liberty of choosing and worshiping whatever deity he pleases” (Eus. H. E. 10:55) He gathered bishops from around the empire at the first council of Nicene to establish church doctrine regarding the trinity. He provided for the restoration of church property, he recalled Christian exiles, returned and gave money to improved church buildings (Eusebius. V. C. 1:44).

While Constantine did not strictly outlaw other forms of worship outside of Christianity, he none the less strong armed non-Christians. For instance, Eusebius says that former tyrants, "…had ordered the pagan temples to be sumptuously adorned: he [Constantine] razed to their foundations those of them which had been the chief objects of superstitious reverence.” (Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine) He also issued an order in Egypt "…that every species of androgyne [eunuch] should be exterminated as a sort of monstrosity” (see Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A. D. 100-400), Parts 100-400, p 50). He required pagans to pay for Constantinople and in general sought “to teach his subjects to give up their rites (…) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,” (Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D. 100-400, 1984) He did not need to force all his subjects by direct decree but through these methods people followed, no doubt some out of fear.

Now looking at the facts we see that by killing his wife and son Constantine showed himself as not personally a very good Christian but he nevertheless heavily favored Christians with public decrees, financial support, and government offices. We see that he tried to get church authorities to agree on doctrine, while he punished pagans by destroying their buildings, killing eunuchs, and in general making their life difficult. I think the evidence is quite clear, Constantine sought to use Christianity as a great unifying force in his empire. I don’t see much problem with Fatboys comment:

Under this setting came Constantine. A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force. And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this.

 

[KathleenGee]

Janderich…

Read my post. Constantine was just as ruthless as others coming out of that era.

And consider that it is the Holy Spirit Who led Peter and Paul to Rome to establish the Roman Church there…

Ever see the movie ‘Star Wars’? I see Christ at work in many levels and signs to proclaim His coming at the right time…He chose to be born at the time of the Constellation of the Ram…fulfilling Abraham’s action of being guided by Angel Gabriel to take the ram stuck in a bush and sacrifice it instead of his son.

To establish Christ’s head church in Rome was the work of Revelation that is always coming at us, bombarding us until we finally open ourselves to receive the Event of Christ Himself into our lives…Christ penetrated the most evil empire on earth…the Babylon of the world by establishing His Church there.

Baptism is what makes us new. And Constantine did not repent of sin or accept Christ and baptism until days before his death. His actions do not represent the Catholic faith or our teachings.