The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

[Chris-WA]

Tom, first of all let me say that I’ve read many of your posts in different threads, and God bless you for your courage to respond to so many of us Catholics. Thank you also for your consistently respectful tone.

I’m particularly interested in this thread because this subject is the crux of the debate between Catholics and Mormons. As I see it, all other issues are subordinate to the debate on the “Great Apostasy,” because if it actually happened–then the Mormons are correct; and if it didn’t–Catholics are correct. The Mormon church rises or falls on this one issue.

You mentioned earlier that Peter did not pass on his authority to a successor. I think this is somewhat a mute argument–as I understand it, Catholics do not believe that any Pope directly passes on his authority because he holds the office until death. He does not choose his own successor ahead of time. It is the surviving bishops who select the successor to fill the vacant office.

You also seemed to indicate that the early bishops passed on a limited authority of binding and loosing to their successors, but not an authority for the whole church. I’m not sure where this comes from–I’ve never heard a Mormon put it that way. The Catholic Church has always taught that Peter held the keys to the kingdom and had authority to “bind and loose,” and that when he vacated his office of authority through his martyrdom, this vacant office had to be filled. The church knew it too, and that’s why we can point to his successors and the years they served in that office. You stated that the primacy of the bishop of Rome was not understood until the end of the 2nd century. I’m not sure how you can make this claim based on the materials you have mentioned.

Do you really believe that after everything the Apostles went through with Christ in his life, death and resurrection, and after having received the Holy Spirit to give them the power and authority to spread the Gospel and baptise all nations–that Christ would allow his Bride, the church, to lose its authority to do so at the death of Peter? It’s not Peter himself that gave the church it’s authority–it’s the office he held. Peter, great Saint that he is, was merely human. It’s the office he held that has the authority.

P.S. I think it’s wonderful that you read early Church history. Your the first Mormon I’ve encountered that gives the subject any legitimacy at all, including all the missionaries I’ve spoken with. Keep reading history, my friend.

Chris

 

[TOmNossor]

FVC,Session 3,Chapter 4: For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be infallibly guarded and interpreted.

The FVC was when this authority of the Pope was defined. Obvious from the above and logically required is that this authority was always part of Catholic doctrine all along (according to Catholics), the church was just DEFINING it so as to make it clear. Concerning the specific portion of conforming with tradition here is one earlier church source to show that this restriction has been taught for a long time.

St. Vincent of Lerins-The Notebooks 22:27: By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding. Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

This passage was commenting on St Paul’s instruction to Timothy to guard the deposit of faith given to him, but it illustrates nicely that the “restriction” to conform with tradition was in fact conforming with tradition. It was written in the early 5th century.

When the heresies where such that the Bishop of Rome and others felt it necessary to declare that there was one central authority, they did this, but they wouldn’t or couldn’t change to a radical Peter equals Pope position.

These early 3rd through early 7th century Christians created a primacy for the Pope that was based upon the primacy of Peter, but was not equal to the primacy of Peter. Tradition was changed a little, but it was not acceptable to scrap tradition altogether. Tertulian was concerned about the extent to which change occurred and perhaps others (even those defining the new authority for the Bishop of Rome) who where less concerned about the change still felt the need to place limits. But it remains that the Pope is not equal to Peter by the current Dogma of the Catholic Church.
Peter received a vision. He received supernatural public revelation that changed the status of the gospel and gentiles, and he put it in effect for the Church of Christ. The Pope does not receive supernatural revelation and he does not introduce something new to the deposit of faith.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris,

Thank you for the kind words. I will respond to at least a few things you said most immediately, and then after discussion of what I call #3 dies down, I can discuss why I believe #1 to be supportable from the ECF.

So we can be on the same page (and since my number were lost).

· #1 The first Bishops, Clement (the 4th Bishop of Rome) included, had no concept of the primacy of Rome.

· #2 The primacy of Rome was put forward around 200AD and Tertulian left the church.

· #3 The authority initially proposed in 200AD solidified into an authority fundamentally different than the authority possessed by the person pointed to as the source of the authority. Peter unequal to Pope.

· #4 The early Christians who where truly close to the Apostles knew the church was to become less than what the Apostles established. They were taught that one could die as a devout Christian or one could wait around until the gospel was perverted and die as part of a lesser organization. (Martyrdom was not necessarily required, but it seems to have been important to some).

· #5 There is evidence that a number of early church beliefs were restored by the CoJCoLDS.

1.  Authoritative Baptism

2.  Men may become gods

3.  Creation from eternal matter.

4.  Subordination within the Trinity.

5.  Anthropomorphic God

6.  And ….

· #6 Non-doctrinal restoration miracles also lend to the thought that there was an apostasy.

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

I’m particularly interested in this thread because this subject is the crux of the debate between Catholics and Mormons. As I see it, all other issues are subordinate to the debate on the “Great Apostasy,” because if it actually happened–then the Mormons are correct;

I would generally agree that this is the most important issue.

Chris-WA:

You mentioned earlier that Peter did not pass on his authority to a successor. I think this is somewhat a mute argument–as I understand it, Catholics do not believe that any Pope directly passes on his authority because he holds the office until death. He does not choose his own successor ahead of time. It is the surviving bishops who select the successor to fill the vacant office.

What I am saying actually is that Linus, Cletus, and Clement (no records from any but Clement) had no idea that they were at the head of the Church. And that the contemporaries of Clement also had no idea that the Bishop of Rome was prime. They knew that they were Bishops in charge of a congregation, but they had no idea that the Bishop of Rome was in charge of the church. Cardinal Newman would say that this knowledge developed over time, but I would suggest that this is a weak point for Catholicism.

I have much more material that I have sorted through and could dig up, but if there really is interest, I thought I would try to use my numbers and explore small sections at a time.

At the end of section 3 (which seemed to be of interest to Darcee ) I can go back and discuss what evidence I have to support any of the other numbers. Again, I do not demand that Catholics view their faith as I would were I a Catholic. I do not encourage LDS to account for all the anti-Mormon things that my faith accounts for either. So I will post here for those who are interested, but this is not something that I think is integral to a Catholics faith walk.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

TOmNossor:

NO NEW DOCTRINE to be put forth by the Pope.

Continued…

That argument would work IF Peter had brought forth something new. He didn’t. He settled a question within the very early church. Who could become a Christian?.

In Acts 10:15 we read:
"The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.” "

Note the past tense. God was not saying “now these things are clean.” or “I make these things clean now”. Christ’s life shows us several examples where Our Lord associates, heals, speaks with or talks to those who are deemed “unclean” by Jewish law.

In short Peter is NOT bringing something entirely new out. He is teaching what Christ taught “expounding it, **may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity” **

Peter himself makes this clear in Acts10:34-43

34 Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.
35 Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.
36 You know the word (that) he sent to the Israelites as he proclaimed peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all,
37 what has happened all over Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached,
38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good and healing all** those oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
39 We are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and (in) Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree.
40 This man God raised (on) the third day and granted that he be visible,
41 not to all the people, but to us, the witnesses chosen by God in advance, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
42 He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead.
43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name.”

This is not new doctrine… this is something in line with the very short amount of Christian Tradition available to Peter, the very example of Christ. If Peter had brought something out totally new, beyond the scope of Christ’s doctrine then you might have a point, but then Peter would have been teaching against Jesus and not speaking as the head of His church.

-D

 

[darcee]

Clarify this for me TOm, are you trying to say that Tertullian left the church over the primacy issue? The way you attempt to juxtapose those two separate events in your #2 seems to be saying that.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

That argument would work IF Peter had brought forth something new. He didn’t. He settled a question within the very early church. Who could become a Christian?.

First, my thesis in point #3 is that the Pope is unequal to Peter and that this is a weakness in the position of the Catholic Church that the Pope has the same authority that Peter had.

In the end one of three things will happen.
#1 I will retreat and say that the Pope is equal to Peter.
#2 You will retreat and say that the Pope is unequal to Peter.

#3 We will agree to disagree because neither of us will retreat.

I put forth two very clear things that suggest that I am correct. You have questioned one and seem to be suggesting that you do not accept my thesis. To not accept my thesis you must attack both of my evidences. It seems to me that one of my points is beyond question, this being the one you neglected to address.

This is:

Peter received SUPERNATURAL PUBLIC REVELATION FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH. No Catholic would claim this ability for the Pope. I the Pope cannot do as Peter did he is not equal to Peter.

The point you have question is also something I put forth. That something is:

Peter can bring forth new and different truths for the guidance of the Church and the Pope must conform to apostolic tradition.

I will address this now.

First, the direction you seem to have chosen in questioning this is to suggest that Peter did not bring forth something new. I will assume that this means that you accept that the Pope cannot bring forth something new.
Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:
In Acts 10:15 we read:

"The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.” "

Note the past tense. God was not saying “now these things are clean.” or “I make these things clean now”. Christ’s life shows us several examples where Our Lord associates, heals, speaks with or talks to those who are deemed “unclean” by Jewish law.

I am not questioning the origin of the change in church position. I agree that it was GOD who declared the animals from the vision clean. I agree that it was GOD who declared the gospel should go to the gentiles. What I say is that this was a change from the position/tradition of the church that came through Peter after Christ was no long on the earth in his mortal ministry.

The above statement only says that God did this. The position of the Catholic Church is that God could not tell the Pope that women can receive the priesthood. This would be outside of the spectrum of messages receivable by the authority that is possessed by the Pope.

darcee:
In short Peter is NOT bringing something entirely new out. He is teaching what Christ taught “expounding it, **may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity” **

St. Vincent de Lerins speaks of the authority of the Pope. He links this to the guidance Paul gave to Timothy. Are you suggesting that Peter is as limited in authority as was Timothy? Are you suggesting the Vincent de Lerins is speaking of Peter?

The fact is that Jesus was very explicit in his mortal ministry. He told the Apostles to go and preach to the Jews. He said he did not come to the gentiles. It was after His time on the earth that God communicated the CHANGE that the apostles and church should go to the gentiles. This communication came through Peter (through supernatural public revelation BTW).

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:
Peter himself makes this clear in Acts10:34-43

This is not new doctrine… this is something in line with the very short amount of Christian Tradition available to Peter, the very example of Christ. If Peter had brought something out totally new, beyond the scope of Christ’s doctrine then you might have a point, but then Peter would have been teaching against Jesus and not speaking as the head of His church.

Acts 10:34-43 says nothing but that Jesus healed folks that were not Jews.

I suggest that to point to some tradition that seems to be contradicted by the words of Jesus when he his disciples not to go to the gentiles is an incredibly strained read of the Bible. If were the magisteriums take on this issue you would have some authority that I would not recognize to stand upon, but I do not think the Catholic Church has addressed this. In fact, I think it is generally accepted by Catholic Scholars that Peter is unequal to Pope.

Were I Catholic, I would concede this point and then explain why it is ok for Peter to be unequal to the Pope, but you can continue to try to poke holes in my #3 point if you wish.

Charity, TOm

 

[javelin35]

Tom, I agree that you are a rarity among Mormons. There may be, after all of these centuries, a few tidbits that might indicate something or another to support this or that. Hey, even as I was studying early writings I sometimes found things that sounded contrary to Catholicism, but they were insignificant. But if you look at life in general, statistically, there are always outliers out there. I looked at the overall evidence, and saw a clear indication that Catholicism was what it said it was, compared to other major expressions of Christianity today. Not only was the Mormon idea of a restored church unbiblical, it was very weak historically. Another clue was the Mormon concept of God and salvation. For me, it really could not be taken seriously in light of the evidence. Nevertheless, I applaud you in your efforts to explain your faith, because the truth will reveal itself. Hopefully you will notice when it does.

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Clarify this for me TOm, are you trying to say that Tertullian left the church over the primacy issue? The way you attempt to juxtapose those two separate events in your #2 seems to be saying that.

Actually, I think I have made it clear that I cannot defend that the case of Tertullian’s departure was caused by the Primacy of Rome issue.

As I mentioned above, I know that history would suggest that Tertullian left to be a Montanist and one of his major issues was a much harder stance upon sin to the neglecting much of what virtually all Christians today teach regarding repentance.

This is position #2 BTW.

I suggest that Tertullian called a spade a spade while he was still an active faithful member of the Church. I suggest that the earliest solid witness of the primacy of Rome came from Irenaeus, and just a few years later:

Tertulian, On Modesty Chapter XXI.-Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, and of the Power of the Keys:

"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound of loosed in heaven,’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally

upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed.”

continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

Tertulian who wrote btw 190-220AD seems to be responding to the authority of Peter being declared in effect in the church of his day. It seems likely the above was written before 206AD when Tertulian began to show Montanist opinions (the Montainists were originally not in schism with the church, and Tertulian formally left around 211-212AD). Tertulian was a respected member of the Catholic Church and an ordained priest. He was in a position to observe the CHANGE that occurred. This CHANGE is that no writings before Ireneaus claimed the Bishop of Rome had the authority of Peter. After Ireanaeus these claims became more and more prevalent until the whole church generally accepted the Primacy of Rome.

Some suggest that Tertulian left the Catholic Church for the Montanists due to his observation of greater Spiritual gifts possessed by the Montanists than by the Catholic Church. Others suggest that Tertulian was a fan of the more strict teachings of the Montanists. In any case, Tertulian was quite logical and was in a position to observe the foundation of the Primacy of Rome doctrine. He seemed to understand keys and authority and yet he chose to schism with the Church. His followers where ultimately accepted back into the Church so obviously he didn’t wander too far. If his reason for leaving had anything to do with the changing position of the Bishop of Rome it is doubtful that this would be the official position of Catholic historians, but it appears from his writings (most likely while he was an Catholic priest in full fellowship with his Bishop and his Church) that he was concerned with people claiming Peter’s authority.

I would rather we stick with #3 and drive to completion, but since I had a few minutes I thought I would respond to your query concerning #2.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

javelin35:

Tom, I agree that you are a rarity among Mormons. There may be, after all of these centuries, a few tidbits that might indicate something or another to support this or that. Hey, even as I was studying early writings I sometimes found things that sounded contrary to Catholicism, but they were insignificant. But if you look at life in general, statistically, there are always outliers out there. I looked at the overall evidence, and saw a clear indication that Catholicism was what it said it was, compared to other major expressions of Christianity today. Not only was the Mormon idea of a restored church unbiblical, it was very weak historically. Another clue was the Mormon concept of God and salvation. For me, it really could not be taken seriously in light of the evidence. Nevertheless, I applaud you in your efforts to explain your faith, because the truth will reveal itself. Hopefully you will notice when it does.

Thank You. I agree there is much to be said for the consistency of the Catholic position.
I hope that I do know the truth. Now or later, but not too late. I can only walk by the light that seems most bright to me.
Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

Are you actually claiming that Christ didn’t heal or associate with anyone that was he forbidden under the Jewish law for him to associate with?
Did you miss what I bolded in Verse 38 for you?

If you are so clear on the Tertullian issue why do you mention his leaving as part of you #2? It seems rather misleading the way you present it…

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Are you actually claiming that Christ didn’t heal or associate with anyone that was he forbidden under the Jewish law for him to associate with?

Did you miss what I bolded in Verse 38 for you?

If you are so clear on the Tertullian issue why do you mention his leaving as part of you #2? It seems rather misleading the way you present it…

-D

I saw and responded to the “all” in verse 38. Do I need to quote the passages where Christ said his disciples should not take the gospel to any but the Jews?

The issue is not if Jesus spoke or even healed gentiles. The issue is that He forbids the gospel to the gentiles during His time on earth.

Please read my Tertullian comments. I am aware of the witness of history. I am aware that CATHOLIC historians have postulated at least two causes for Tertullain’s split. I claim that Tertullian is clear that the primacy of Rome is a usurpation. I claim that he left the church and that our knowledge of how documents survived during the 1800 years after his departure does not demand that we have perfect knowledge of why. I claim that he is a well respected early Christian, and even though I cannot support the thought that he departed partially over the usurpation of authority by the Bishop of Rome, his witness is still real time and powerful.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

Please read Mathew 8:5-13. Pay special attention to verse 11.

You comment "I am aware that CATHOLIC historians have postulated at least two causes for Tertullain’s split. " Is really quite funny. I guess if you can’t find history to agree with you just propose that the history that is there has been fabricated.

-D

 

[Dr_Paul]

TOmNossor:

First, my thesis in point #3 is that the Pope is unequal to Peter and that this is a weakness in the position of the Catholic Church that the Pope has the same authority that Peter had.
Peter received SUPERNATURAL PUBLIC REVELATION FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH. No Catholic would claim this ability for the Pope. I the Pope cannot do as Peter did he is not equal to Peter.
The point you have question is also something I put forth. That something is:
Peter can bring forth new and different truths for the guidance of the Church and the Pope must conform to apostolic tradition.

The confusion I see here is a failure to recognize that Peter was BOTH an apostle and the first pope. The period of general revelation ended with the death of John, last surviving apostle. While subsequent popes cannot claim general revelation, this is not a problem for Peter.
I don’t see the problem here.

 

[darcee]

The part I take exception to is the idea that Peter was teaching something other than what Christ taught. When in fact what he taught was in harmony with Christ’s teachings.

-D

 

[javelin35]

Dr Paul:

The confusion I see here is a failure to recognize that Peter was BOTH an apostle and the first pope. The period of general revelation ended with the death of John, last surviving apostle. While subsequent popes cannot claim general revelation, this is not a problem for Peter.
I don’t see the problem here.

Nor do I. Even without considering the Catholic teaching that all revelation has ended, it does not follow that just because Peter and the papacy do not have completely identical roles in the Church, that the papacy is therefore not the modern expression of the chair of Peter. No one is calling the pope an apostle. Rather, they are calling the pope the bishop of Rome, vicar of Christ, etc, things that would be passed on. Dr Paul, do I have this right?

 

[Tmaque]

Speaking as an ex-mormon I find it incredible that for 20 years I actually believed that Joseph Smith succeeded where Jesus FAILED. How arrogant can a religion be? Joseph Smith himself WAS just that arrogant. He himself made note of the “fact” that even “Christ himself hadn’t been able to keep a whole church together as I have done”. That must have been the point at which he invented the notion of “eternal progression”. That way he could be a God too. No objective person could believe that Joseph Smith was anything but a self-obsessed, sex-obsessed scheister.