Refuting the Great Apostasy theory

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Some churches, such as the Mormon church and other restorationist churches accept the Great Apostasy theory as valid. They say that the Catholic Church was not started until the 3rd or 4th centuries. How does one refute this idea? I have a feeling that quoting early Church fathers such as the one in my signature would be valuable in this debate but what about others? How can we prove that the Church was indeed Catholic from the very beginning?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Hi everyone. Some churches, such as the Mormon church and other restorationist churches accept the Great Apostasy theory as valid. They say that the Catholic Church was not started until the 3rd or 4th centuries. How does one refute this idea? I have a feeling that quoting early Church fathers such as the one in my signature would be valuable in this debate but what about others? How can we prove that the Church was indeed Catholic from the very beginning?

• I. Biblically, and not to take away from the spiritual apect of the Church, the Church is a visible institution established by Christ to proclaim the Good News to all nations. Founding His Church on the rock Peter, Jesus promised to guard the Church from being led astray: “You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).
• II. Historically, you will see no evidence at all for the “Great Apostasy.”

If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy to be taken seriously, they must evince biblical and historical evidence supporting it. So far they’ve come up empty-handed. Honest investigators will see the unavoidable truth: The Mormon “great apostasy” doctrine is a myth. There never has been–nor will there ever be–a complete apostasy. Jesus Christ promised that his Church, established on the solid rock of Peter, will remain forever. We have his Word on it [1].

EDIT: To demonstrate how the Catholic Church has had consistent teachings in its 2,000 years of existence, I would look over the Church Fathers tracts provided here on Catholic Answers

[1] See “In Search of the 'Great Apostasy” for more info
[catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp]](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp])

 

[catholic1seeks]

Taken from the above article, here may be some important notes:

• If Smith was right about an apostasy, then Jesus was a pathetic failure when it came to establishing his Church. After all, what are we to think of his promises? If there really was a complete apostasy, how do we explain our Lord’s claim that his Church never would be overcome, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:19)? What about his promise that he would be with his Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20)? What about his promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16, 26)? What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?
• The best way to refute this charge is to have the Mormon read Jesus’ promises regarding the doctrinal integrity and the temporal perpetuity of his Church: “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18); “Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20); “The Father . . . will give you another Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16); “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you” (John 14:26); “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13). Go through each text, pointing out that none mentions a complete apostasy.
• A key difficulty for Mormons is that they can’t say exactly when the apostasy took place, nor can they point to any definitive historical evidence of it. Other than Smith’s claims there is only an interior feeling or testimony on which Mormons can base their beliefs, but such subjective proof proves nothing.
• Mormons misconstrue the biblical passages which do refer to a “great apostasy” from the Christian Church. They read into the text a complete apostasy. Scripture mentions an apostasy in Matthew 24:4-12; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 21:7-8; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; and Jude 17-19. Most of these verses say “many” will fall away, and not one mentions a complete apostasy of the Church. Another complication for Mormons is that these verses say the apostasy will take place at the end times, the “latter days” as the King James version renders it. The second and third centuries were not the “latter days.”
• In refuting Mormonism’s theory of a complete apostasy (and in the process Mormonism itself), Catholics should be able to explain how the integrity of the Church was preserved. The answer: apostolic succession, the unbroken continuum of apostolic authority transmitted via the office of bishop. This doctrine is the logical and scriptural alternative to the Mormon concept of an apostasy and restoration.

 

[Kotton]

Quoting the Early Fathers will not convince most of them, they believe many were giving their own opinions. No amount of evidence seems to sway their view of the Catholic Church. The real historians tend to have a better understanding of the CHURCH, and you can only pray that those misled people can someday see the light.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi everyone. Some churches, such as the Mormon church and other restorationist churches accept the Great Apostasy theory as valid. They say that the Catholic Church was not started until the 3rd or 4th centuries. How does one refute this idea? I have a feeling that quoting early Church fathers such as the one in my signature would be valuable in this debate but what about others? How can we prove that the Church was indeed Catholic from the very beginning?

Make them cite their sources.

It doesn’t make any difference whether they want to hear about the writings of the early church, Holly. Those are historical Christian sources and they clearly show that the ECF believed, preached, and practiced the same essential things that we do today. Our doctrines and practices have developed over that time, but when one reads the Didache (which dates to during the time the New Testament was being written) and the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna (which dates to just after the New Testament was completed) you can see that we are saying the same thing they did, and they are saying the same thing that the New Testament says.

All of that far predates their argument that the Catholic Church was the creation of Constantine in the 4th century. If that is true (and it is!) then their case is a work of fiction. (And here again…it is.)

Historic facts refute their propaganda. If they won’t accept it…walk away.

 

[Holly3278]

Make them cite their sources.

It doesn’t make any difference whether they want to hear about the writings of the early church, Holly. Those are historical Christian sources and they clearly show that the ECF believed, preached, and practiced the same essential things that we do today. Our doctrines and practices have developed over that time, but when one reads the Didache (which dates to during the time the New Testament was being written) and the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna (which dates to just after the New Testament was completed) you can see that we are saying the same thing they did, and they are saying the same thing that the New Testament says.

All of that far predates their argument that the Catholic Church was the creation of Constantine in the 4th century. If that is true (and it is!) then their case is a work of fiction. (And here again…it is.)

Historic facts refute their propaganda. If they won’t accept it…walk away.

Hi Michael. You confused me with this paragraph:

All of that far predates their argument that the Catholic Church was the creation of Constantine in the 4th century. If that is true (and it is!) then their case is a work of fiction. (And here again…it is.)

Are you saying that the Catholic Church was indeed the creation of Constantine? If so, I would beg to differ. I am pretty sure that is not what you are saying though because I know you to be a devout Catholic. That said, could you clear up what you are saying please?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hi Michael. You confused me with this paragraph:

Are you saying that the Catholic Church was indeed the creation of Constantine? If so, I would beg to differ. I am pretty sure that is not what you are saying though because I know you to be a devout Catholic. That said, could you clear up what you are saying please?

No CM is stating that the writings of the Church Fathers predate the supposed idea that Catholicism was a creation of Constantine. If Constantine created Catholicism, why then do the Church Fathers write about and believe in distinct Catholic beliefs such as the Eucharist and infant baptism. Both things that are denied by the LDS church.

My favorite angle on this would be to ask when they believe the Apostasy occurred. If they say a time before the canon of the Bible, then ask how come they accept the canon of the Bible that was determined by a Church which had, in their view, gone into Apostasy. If they say after the Canon of the Bible then you can compare and contrast the beliefs of the Church Fathers and those of the Church after the supposed Apostasy.

God bless

 

[theMutant]

I was previously involved in a thread where we attempted to show that the Church, from the very earliest days, taught the same doctrine as the Catholic Church does today - because it is one and the same Church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19069

I posted a very lengthy series of quotes and explanations in posts 93 - 111 trying to show the biblical foundation of the Catholic Church and then showing how the early Church clearly believed the same things that the Catholic Church teaches.

Hopefully, you will not encounter a “brick wall” like we did in this thread.

 

[thistle]

Hi Michael. You confused me with this paragraph:

Are you saying that the Catholic Church was indeed the creation of Constantine? If so, I would beg to differ. I am pretty sure that is not what you are saying though because I know you to be a devout Catholic. That said, could you clear up what you are saying please?

He is not saying that.
He is saying that these writings were done long before the Mormons claim the Catholic Church was created.