The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[Cowboy_Pete]

Okay, but why would your Church care about the stance of the Catholic Church on this issue? … why should Mormons give a hoot about what the Catholic Church teaches?

Well, if you were teaching a doctrine that we considered to be abomination, then we would not want to be publicly connected to you, to trust you with tithe monies, etc.

After all, you have said that the Mormon church believes that the Catholic Church apostatized (in the first century, right?)

No, not right. When did I say that? I said that the 1950s views of “The Great Apostasy” have been revised in the light of LDS scholarship, and I posted a link which specifically disclaimed that view as “bigoted.” That’s a strongly worded concession that we were wrong about you, don’t you think?

, and that the Catholic priesthood is not valid

Ah, not that I did say. Yes, we believe that the LDS church is the only church currently on the earth with priesthood keys to baptize and to perform communion.

so therefore Catholic baptism is not valid

It wouldn’t prepare you to be administered the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by LDS priesthood authority. It wouldn’t make you members of the LDS church. It would not prepare you to receive the ordinances of the holy Temple. But why would you care about such things, as Catholics?

 

[Denise1957]

Well, if you were teaching a doctrine that we considered to be abomination, then we would not want to be publicly connected to you, to trust you with tithe monies, etc.

No, not right. When did I say that? I said that the 1950s views of “The Great Apostasy” have been revised in the light of LDS scholarship, and I posted a link which specifically disclaimed that view as “bigoted.” That’s a strongly worded concession that we were wrong about you, don’t you think?

Ah, not that I did say. Yes, we believe that the LDS church is the only church currently on the earth with priesthood keys to baptize and to perform communion.

It wouldn’t prepare you to be administered the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by LDS priesthood authority. It wouldn’t make you members of the LDS church. It would not prepare you to receive the ordinances of the holy Temple. But why would you care about such things, as Catholics?

So basically the reason about why the Mormon Church would care about the stance of the Catholic Church on the issue has to do with money - the giving of tithes to Catholic organizations. Okay.

My apologies; I thought you had stated that the Mormon view is that the Catholic Church had apostatized, and that the Catholic priesthood is not valid and therefore baptism isn’t valid. It must have been someone else who stated that somewhere along the line.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

So basically the reason about why the Mormon Church would care about the stance of the Catholic Church on the issue has to do with money - the giving of tithes to Catholic organizations.

No and yes. It has to do with trust and public affiliation, not with money. Maybe what I’m trying to communicate just doesn’t cross the cultural barrier … if it comes off like I’m associating doctrine with money, then I deeply regret bringing up the example. You’re a vast church, and we’re relatively tiny; I would be humiliated if anyone came away thinking that I was implying some sort of payoff or reward.

One last shot at explanation: It’s an expression of trust. Merely “giving” you the money would not require trust. A gift is a gift. But trusting you to properly use trust funds in the name of the Lord whom we both serve … is this coming across at all?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

My apologies; I thought you had stated that the Mormon view is that the Catholic Church had apostatized, and that the Catholic priesthood is not valid and therefore baptism isn’t valid. It must have been someone else who stated that somewhere along the line.

I think it was, since I remember I corrected them. But you are right that “Catholic apostasy” used to be a common LDS view until the 1980s, and in fact, used to be my view until I did my homework.

 

[Denise1957]

No and yes. It has to do with trust and public affiliation, not with money. Maybe what I’m trying to communicate just doesn’t cross the cultural barrier … if it comes off like I’m associating doctrine with money, then I deeply regret bringing up the example. You’re a vast church, and we’re relatively tiny; I would be humiliated if anyone came away thinking that I was implying some sort of payoff or reward.

One last shot at explanation: It’s an expression of trust. Merely “giving” you the money would not require trust. A gift is a gift. But trusting you to properly use trust funds in the name of the Lord whom we both serve … is this coming across at all?

I think I understand about the trust issue regarding money. I didn’t think that it had anything to do with a payoff or reward. I don’t particularly think that the Catholic Church needs Mormon funds, really, but that’s another issue, perhaps. But you mentioned that it has to do with public affiliation. I wonder if you can elaborate on that?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I don’t particularly think that the Catholic Church needs Mormon funds,

I absolutely agree! That’s what I meant by you being a big church and us being tiny. I’m sure our widow’s mite is just a drop in your well, and I didn’t mean to imply that you should be grateful to us, that would be insufferably arrogant for me to say.

But you mentioned that it has to do with public affiliation.

Not you with us, but us with you, through the regular church announcements. Essentially the church is telling us that part of our tithes is being entrusted to you. That’s a strong statement to mormons that we see the Catholic church as our trustworthy friends, regardless of how they see us.

 

[Denise1957]

I absolutely agree! That’s what I meant by you being a big church and us being tiny. I’m sure our widow’s mite is just a drop in your well, and I didn’t mean to imply that you should be grateful to us, that would be insufferably arrogant for me to say.

Not you with us, but us with you, through the regular church announcements. Essentially the church is telling us that part of our tithes is being entrusted to you. That’s a strong statement to mormons that we see the Catholic church as our trustworthy friends, regardless of how they see us.

I appreciate the explanation. Thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

We don’t accept your baptism as an LDS baptism, but we do recognize that in your baptism, that your intention is to make a covenant with the same God that we worship, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was made flesh, was born of a virgin, dwelt among us doing miracles, and died on the cross for our sins so that all of us might live again. He who defeated death and hell.

What upsets me, and what I suspect upsets other Mormons, is that some of you attack our intentions with regard to worshiping Jesus Christ. We only question your authority; we do not question your Christianity.

Pete, first of all I would like to tell you that I very much appreciate your perspective on a number of issues in which you have entered the discussions here on CAF. I find that you are very knowledgeable, fair, honest and charitable in your remarks. I’ve learned much from you about Mormonism in just a few days.

It is in that spirit that I hope you will receive my remarks about your concerns above.
A valid baptism, among other things, must include the right “intention”, as you have heard more than a few times just in the last 24 hours. That intention is to be baptized into God. We are not baptized Catholic, or Methodist, or Lutheran or Baptist, etc. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. the Holy Trinity. This is a necessary part of a valid Christian baptism.

I don’t think you would argue that the LDS church rejects the Trinity and has developed its own, very unique theology. This fact alone means that you cannot have the same “intention” as the rest of the Christian world, and certainly the Catholic Church. This says nothing about your sincerity and we could spend months going back and forth discussing the differences in theology. The fact is, you would never have the intention of being baptised into the life of the Trinity.

Now, you say that you worship “the same God…, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was made flesh, was born of a virgin, dwelt among us doing miracles, and died on the cross for our sins so that all of us might live again. He who defeated death and hell.”. In reality we do not worship the same God because you reject and deny the essential elements that constitute our God; one God, in three persons who are united in their very being, not just will and purpose. You describe a different being but call him by the same name.

I’m not quite sure what you meant when you said “…some of you attack our intentions with regard to worshiping Jesus Christ” and how that relates to “intention” concerning baptism, but I have been under the impression for some time now that you don’t worship Jesus Christ. I have heard this from Mormons on this forum as well as by some of your leaders:

***“We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well about what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense - the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God first, the Creator.” ***(Bruce McConkie, Speech at BYU on March 2 1982).

I look forward to your take on this, but if true, it just adds to the fact that we do not worship the same God and therefore cannot have the same “intention”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

***“We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well about what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense - the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God first, the Creator.” ***(Bruce McConkie, Speech at BYU on March 2 1982).

That’s odd, because what I remember of Bruce R. McConkie are the words of the hymn that he wrote. hymn written by Bruce R McConkie:

1. I believe in Christ; oh blessed name!
   As Mary’s Son he came to reign
   ’Mid mortal men, his earthly kin,
   To save them from the woes of sin.
   I believe in Christ, who marked the path,
   Who did gain all his Father hath,
   Who said to men: “Come, follow me,
   That ye, my friends, with God may be.”

1. I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God!
   My feet he plants on gospel sod.
   I’ll worship him with all my might;
   He is the source of truth and light.
   I believe in Christ; he ransoms me.
   From Satan’s grasp he sets me free,
   And I shall live with joy and love
   In his eternal courts above.

I’ll point out also that Brother McConkie read his poem again over the pulpit in 2003, as his final public testimony. In the very last sermon that he delivered in mortality, Bruce R. McConkie stated that he worshiped Jesus Christ with all his might.

I hope that at the end of my life that I’ll still be able to say the same.

 

[Palaiologos]

no, I’m only one Mormon. Some mormons discovered them long ago, some still don’t know about them. I was speaking for myself. The guy that introduced me to them was actually a former Orthodox priest who joined the church when I was at BYU.

Other mormons, such as Brian33 on this forum, have came to the same conclusions that I did without reading the Church Fathers.

But for me Anasthasius was the key.

You realize who Athanasius was and what he taught don’t you? The writings of the great defender of the council of Nicaea do not support the Mormon position on the nature of God or on exaltation. The study of the early Christian church and the Church Fathers helped lead me out of the Mormon church and into Catholicism. The notion of a great apostasy seems absurd to me now both theologically and historically. Teaching about a supposed great apostasy is itself a sure sign of apostasy from the Christian faith.

 

[CopticChristian]

You realize who Athanasius was and what he taught don’t you? The writings of the great defender of the council of Nicaea do not support the Mormon position on the nature of God or on exaltation. The study of the early Christian church and the Church Fathers helped lead me out of the Mormon church and into Catholicism. The notion of a great apostasy seems absurd to me now both theologically and historically. Teaching about a supposed great apostasy is itself a sure sign of apostasy from the Christian faith.

I am no expert in Mormon thought. I am a student of thought. I believe and have said that Protestanism is a type of thought. There are many Protestants that I have spoken to and many that have websites that declare their existence is as a result of Apostasy that in my opinion lacks any time or definition. In consideration that this notion of Apostasy is circulated in Protestant thought it is reasonable to see how Mormonism has within its thought process that same notion. Like begets like.

In time there may be other groups that split from Mormons declaring them to be apostate and on and on. I know about the RLDS. There may in time be others.

 

[Palaiologos]

We believe that loss of the priesthood occurred because of an apostasy, but we do not believe that you, the Catholic/Orthodox churches, were the apostates. Your church did the best with what it had, and we’re grateful for your scholarship and diligence in preserving the holy Bible, and in bringing the knowledge of Christ to so much of the world.

You can’t get out of it that easily. If there was a great apostasy then it certainly must have been the catholic Christians who brought it about, men like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch,and Polycarp of Smyrna. They were bishops of the catholic church and supposedly were ordained by the apostles themselves. Apparently they weren’t worthy to become apostles, not like Parley P. Pratt or Heber C. Kimball, even though Ignatius was torn apart by lions in the arena rather than deny Christ and Polycarp was also brutally killed rather than blaspheme his King and Savior. If anyone corrupted the early church in doctrine and organization it was men like Ignatius who preached that the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus and that the church was governed by bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The doctrine and church organization that they espoused were decidely catholic. There really isn’t this long dark period between the apostles and the early catholic church. Clement wrote when the apostle John was still alive and within 30 years of the deaths of Peter and Paul. Ignatius wrote within 10 years of John. If Jesus abandoned men like them and left them without authority or guidance then what trust can I put in his faithfulness to me?

 

[Palaiologos]

I am no expert in Mormon thought. I am a student of thought. I believe and have said that Protestanism is a type of thought. There are many Protestants that I have spoken to and many that have websites that declare their existence is as a result of Apostasy that in my opinion lacks any time or definition. In consideration that this notion of Apostasy is circulated in Protestant thought it is reasonable to see how Mormonism has within its thought process that same notion. Like begets like.

In time there may be other groups that split from Mormons declaring them to be apostate and on and on. I know about the RLDS. There may in time be others.

The FLDS claim that the mainstream Mormon church went into apostasy when they abandoned polygamy, which was considered to be central to the Restoration and the everlasting covenant. Funny that the catholics/orthodox are accused of apostasy when they are the ones who stuck stubbornly to their beliefs in spite of centuries of horrific persecutions by the Romans (far far worse than anything the LDS experienced), when the Mormon church caved in so quickly on the critical practice of plural marriage. And in response to much more mild persecutions. The catholics eventually triumphed and the pagan Romans lost. In the 19th century the United States government won and the LDS church lost.

 

[KathleenGee]

In past threads, it has been brought up to Mormons, and those many martyrs who died for their faith which was brought to them by the successors of the Apostles.

Christ did not fail. He said the words that upon the rock, Peter, He would build His church. The test is basically acknowledging God’s authority through men of clay but witnesses to Christ, He chose them. Practically all of them were martyrs and we know that the blood of martyrs bear much fruit.

 

[ParkerD]

In past threads, it has been brought up to Mormons, and those many martyrs who died for their faith which was brought to them by the successors of the Apostles.

Christ did not fail. He said the words that upon the rock, Peter, He would build His church. The test is basically acknowledging God’s authority through men of clay but witnesses to Christ, He chose them. Practically all of them were martyrs and we know that the blood of martyrs bear much fruit.

Hi, KathleenGee,

Here is a logical explanation about the willingness of Ignatius to suffer martyrdom rather than deny his faith that Christ had come “in the flesh”, written by Richard Lloyd Anderson in an article I had cited earlier in this thread, which is found here:

lds.org/ensign/1976/08/clement-ignatius-and-polycarp-three-bishops-between-the-apostles-and-apostasy?lang=eng&query=great+apostasy+New+World

John’s Revelation had been given to the same churches that Iganatius wrote to, and its early chapters give only two choices: faithful martyrdom or unfaithful apostasy. He does not even discuss the possibility that the faithful saints will perpetuate the church on earth. If that had been a real option, then Ignatius should have hoped for continued life to extend Christianity further. Instead, he thought that his best choice was death for Christ, which exactly fits the apostolic prophecies.

The allowance of a loss of the valid priesthood authority, given by God to man, is totally consistent with the book of Revelation wherein John writes that the church would be “taken into the wilderness”. This loss is not to say that the work of Christ “failed”, of course–it was not the end of the world yet, and Christ’s work carries on until after the end of the world. His work will continue during the Millenium, from the perspective of many people including, I assume, the Catholic perspective about His work.

The allowance of a loss of the guiding influence of continuing revelation through prophets being called by God on the earth is another aspect of the “apostasy” that is consistent with the book of Revelation. That would be why there would come the time when there would be the need for “another angel” coming to the earth with the message of the everlasting gospel “to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, …” (Revelation 14:6-7)

The “rock” pointed out by Christ as recorded in Matthew 16:18 is the same Rock as the rock pointed out by Him as recorded in His fundamental teachings in Matthew 7:24-27 about the wise man building his house “upon a rock”.

It means the man or woman who builds upon a rock is building upon a firm, strongly founded belief and knowledge of Jesus as the living Christ because that knowledge, given by the revelation from God communicated through the Holy Ghost, allows Christ to bind His congregation of believers to Him as they go through the floods and winds and storms of life and as He thus prepares them to live in the presence of the Father by making them His jewels (Malachi 3:17).

 

[wisdomseeker]

I found this on the LDS website: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=619439b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

According to this definition, the Great Apostasy resulted in the removal of the authority of the priesthood from the Earth, the loss of a living prophet to lead the body of believers, and thus the loss of the Church on Earth. Hence, the need for a restoration under the prophethood of Joseph Smith.

This article on the LDS website states that the Great Apostasy occurred around the end of the 1st century AD, when the last apostle passed away.

My question is, what does this mean for the church that the LDS scriptures teach that Jesus founded in the Americas and which lasted for a much longer time? How could the Great Apostasy have occurred if there was a prophet on the Earth and a church with the authority of the priesthood?

This Wikipedia article provides a timeline for the Book of Mormon events: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_chronology#Between_AD_36_and_321

Assuming the dates are correct, the Church in the Book of Mormon lands experienced a good deal of unity and peace until the very end of the second century and then only very gradually fell into apostasy. There was a prophet, priesthood, presumably a church, on Earth until the 400s AD.

How can the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy and its first century date fit with the LDS belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I find a great deal of lack of reasoning behind this theory. First they assume that the Church ended with the Apostles. this means that they only see the Church during the Apostles times, thus denying the CC. what else is there. of course for one to believe what they teach, one must deny the existence of the Church Jesus built. protestants do that.

Second. one ought to ask if the Church only lasted while under the Apostles, what happened to all those Christians that the Apostles converted?

Third, did Jesus waited until United States was discovered and 18 hundred yrs He decided it is time for the Church again? and a very different one. what happened to all the people on earth before J Smith came to be? Did our Lord just forgot about them?

Strange and irrational belief about God.

 

[Hastrman]

Strange and irrational belief about God.

Mormons are, by and large, wonderful, wonderful people. But their religion is weirder 'n heck—and not in the “well, it’s a weird world” way that every religion is weird.

In some ways I think Mormonism was the 19th century’s Scientology, though without the conspiracy/scam aspects. And the forced abortions for certain kinds of members (yes, really, I think it’s required of women in Sea Org).

 

[Hastrman]

Not to be outdone, you will find on some Protestant websites a history that goes something like this,

The Apostles
The Fathers
Augustine
The Medieval Church
Apostasy

The claim is that the Church was different in the time of the Apostles, The Fathers, Augustine and The Medieval times and then everything went wrong so that Protestants had to retrieve the Church of the Fathers and Augustine.

Hmm, that’s the best timeline I’ve seen yet, though—Renaissance Christianity was kinda a disgrace, and at least they’re acknowledging the great medievals.

 

[Palaiologos]

I have a related question which might merit its own thread, so if you or someone else want to start one to discuss it, I’d much appreciate:

I don’t understand why Roman Catholics would recognize the Baptism of Protestants, and even of other Catholic sects that don’t recognize the Pope’s authority.

• Baptism is a holy sacrament, is it not?
• Did not our Lord and Savior give the Apostle Peter the keys to bind in heaven as well as Earth?
• How could anyone baptize, perform a covenant that’s binding in heaven, without the authority given to Peter?
• How could anyone hold the authority given to Peter, while rejecting the only successor that God recognizes for Peter on the Earth?

I ask out of sincere interest; I am not asking a rhetorical question, and have no desire to sew doubt in anyone’s mind. God bless, and thank you.

Don’t worry, I’m sure you are not sowing doubt in anyone’s mind. Likewise I am not trying to sow doubt in your mind about the LDS church’s claims, I’m just trying to explain the Catholic view. You are understandably looking at all of this through a Mormon lens rather than a Catholic one. I was in the same position not too long ago and it took me a while to understand the differences in their approaches to the church and authority. With regards to your questions, my understanding as a newcomer to Catholicism is:

1.Yes, baptism is a sacrament. Catholics understand a sacrament to be a physical sign of invisible grace given by God. A sacrament is not defined as something that requires priesthood authority.

2.Yes. Binding and loosing in the original Jewish sense of those words. The successor of Peter can bind and loose with regards to faith and morals. The church of Rome can ultimately determine what the Christian faith consists of and what is required of Christian believers in the practice of their faith. One example of that power is the determination that non-Catholic baptisms can be valid and that Lutheran or Baptist converts do not need to be rebaptised, whereas Mormon converts do.

3.Baptism is one of those sacraments that do not essentially require priesthood (although a priest is the normal minister of baptism). As long as the basic form and intention is correct (baptizing with water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), a baptism is considered valid. Since the Mormon understanding of the nature of God is so different from that of traditional Christianity, the Catholic Church has determined that its baptism is invalid even though the LDS use water and the words listed above.

4.As explained above, the authority to baptize is not understood in terms of priesthood authority and so is not dependent on direct authorization from the successor of Peter.

5.Same as #4. With regards to the priesthood, Catholics understand its transmission to be through validly ordained bishops. Bishops are ordained by other bishops (more than one) who themselves have been validly ordained, and so on, back to the original apostles who were ordained by Christ. Thus the Orthodox Churches have the priesthood and valid sacraments that require the priesthood (like the Eucharist) because they possess this line of ordinations going back to the apostles, even though they are not currently in communion with Rome. Catholics don’t understand schism in the Church as necessarily invalidating priesthood authority. The Church is more flexible than that, it doesn’t fall apart so easily.

The distinguishing factor between sacraments that require the priesthood and sacraments that do not is whether the sacrament was initiated and performed by Jesus himself. The sacraments of the forgiveness of sins, ordination to the priesthood, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and above all the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of the Lord are sacraments that require the priesthood since these are things that Jesus himself did and sacraments that began with Jesus. The priest stands in the place of Jesus when he performs these sacraments. Especially the Eucharist, which is seen as a sacrifice, in fact, the same sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Just as Jewish priests were required to make the sacrifices in the temple under the old covenant, the sacrifice of the new covenant is also done exclusively by priests. In contrast, Jesus himself did not baptize nor initiate the practice of baptism. Baptism replaces circumcision as the entry point into the people of God. Just as priesthood was/is not required to perform a circumcision, it is also not required for baptism.

I hope this helps you see how the Catholics understand issues of authority and also the sacraments. It is different from the Mormon position and requires some mental adjustment.

 

[Palaiologos]

Do Catholics use the sacramental phrase “having been commissioned of Jesus Christ”?

If so, then how can the issue focus purely on your perceived compatibility of beliefs, rather than on authority from God?

Catholics do not use that phrase and it has never been part of the sacrament of baptism.