The "Great Apostasy": History or Fiction?

[Church_Militant]

jphilapy:

I don’t know what exactly constitutes “The Great Apostasy” but there was a huge apostasy in the early church around 200-250 and it had nothing to do with schism and heresy.

The following comes from: newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

“But there was another side to the picture. At Rome terrified Christians rushed to the temples to sacrifice. At Carthage the majority apostatized. Some would not sacrifice, but purchased libelli, or certificates, that they had done so Some bought the exemption of their family at the price of their own sin. Of these libellatici there were several thousands in Carthage. Of the fallen some did not repent, others joined the heretics, but most of them clamoured for forgiveness and restoration. Some, who had sacrificed under torture, returned to be tortured afresh.”

“The prosperity of the Church during a peace of thirty-eight years had produced great disorders. Many even of the bishops were given up to worldliness and gain, and we hear of worse scandals.”

Jeff

Hi Jeff,
You really should’ve just left the link up there w/o the excerpt that you posted out of context…“St. Cyprian of Carthage” & “THE DECIAN PERSECUTION” Your out of context quote provides a biased view of what that encyclopedia entry really says and it may not mean much to you as a non-Catholic, but it’s critically important to this discussion. I urge all of you to g back and read the entire entry in context as I did.

The point is that there is no contention that such things occured from time to time in history, HOWEVER there is no evidence that the church as a whole went astray, and even the article that you’ve cited says that the church dealt with the problem and that we have writings from that time to support that.

This thread is here to encourage discussion of the so-called “Great Apostasy” after the death of St. John and to refute it. The fact that no knowlegeable Catholic will assent that such an even occurred is just because most of us know the history well enough to know better. I would like to see evidence for (if any is presented) and against (which should abound).

I would point out that Decius was a Roman King and that he persecuted the church terribly. At that time the Romans sought every cause they could to attempt to irradicate the believers.

Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Jeff said:

• Third, some keep mentioning the end times as if they were somewhere in the future. But the apostles themselves referred to their own day as the end times indicating that from then till now is the end times. Which means in theory that “The great apostasy” could have taken place any time between the death of the apostles and now.

• Since we are on the topic of the end times does anyone have any insight regarding the last four churches out of the seven in revelations? I mean Jesus indicates that those churches would be on earth till he returned.

Thanks,
Jeff

Jeff,
That is not the topic here… This thread is on the allegation that the Catholic Church departed from Christianity early on.

Please feel free to cut and paste that to another thread that you open for that talk, because it’s a good question.

 

[jphilapy]

Church Militant:

Jeff said:

Jeff,
That is not the topic here… This thread is on the allegation that the Catholic Church departed from Christianity early on.

Please feel free to cut and paste that to another thread that you open for that talk, because it’s a good question.

Thanks CM and no problem.

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

coming from a non-catholic I see no possible way to prove a complete apostasy.

• A friend and I had this discussion a while back. His conclusion was that proving a complete apostasy is like trying to prove there are no watchamathingys in the world for the last 1700 years. The scope of making such proof would be too daunting for any human being to search. First you have 1700 years of history and countless billions of people, and too many nooks and crannys to search. Even if you spent your entire life searching, you would never know or prove this point with complete satisfaction.
• However from a scriptural point of view you would have to prove what an apostasy is and show who commited it. However even then you could not prove a complete apostasy. Even elijah didn’t know there were 7000 total who did not apostate. So couple this point with the above point and you have a fairly irrefuteable arguement. Not to mention that Paul established the idea that God always maintains a remnant.
• History showing there are still believers in the world for 2000 years and the gospel preached demonstrates that there wasn’t a complete apostasy.

Those be my thoughts.

Jeff

 

[Pace]

BibleReader:

I believe that we are solidly into the Great Apostasy today – right now, at this minute.

Church attendance is dying in Europe. The U.S. church attendance is in trouble. About three-quaters of married Catholics use contraception of some sort, carefully and consciously disobeying their own Magisterium. Between 50,000 and 100,000 young folks have been sexually molested by priests. Vocations in the West are dying. A growing number of Protestant congregations have homosexual ministers engaging in homosexual activity before coming from the parsonage into Church. The Episcopal Church even elected a man engaging in such activities bishop. Our governments are starting to marry homosexuals, giving the official blessing to homosexual sex acts.

I’d say that qualifies.

We also have to be open to the possibility that the remaining orthodox, despairing over God’s apparent silence and indifference to their mental sufferings, sought to ‘bring down God’s fire’ on the world with The Passion of the Christ .

(But there is good news! God wasn’t indifferent to our sufferings. He gave us the two prophets David Lynch and Lars von Trier.)

 

[Church_Militant]

jphilapy:

coming from a non-catholic I see no possible way to prove a complete apostasy.

• A friend and I had this discussion a while back. His conclusion was that proving a complete apostasy is like trying to prove there are no watchamathingys in the world for the last 1700 years. The scope of making such proof would be too daunting for any human being to search. First you have 1700 years of history and countless billions of people, and too many nooks and crannys to search. Even if you spent your entire life searching, you would never know or prove this point with complete satisfaction.
• However from a scriptural point of view you would have to prove what an apostasy is and show who commited it. However even then you could not prove a complete apostasy. Even elijah didn’t know there were 7000 total who did not apostate. So couple this point with the above point and you have a fairly irrefuteable arguement. Not to mention that Paul established the idea that God always maintains a remnant.
• History showing there are still believers in the world for 2000 years and the gospel preached demonstrates that there wasn’t a complete apostasy.

Those be my thoughts.

Jeff

So Jeff,
As a non-Catholic you are saying that to the best of your knowlege and capacity there is NO historic evidence that the Catholic Church went pagan after the death of the last apostle?
This means then that these alleged events did not occur and that the Catholic Church has indeed traced a direct line of apostolic succession back to the apostles and remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles for the last 2,000 plus years.

If what you say is true then why do we have these misguided allegations from non-Catholics on a regular basis? (I am speaking rhetorically here Jeff. I certainly don’t expect you to answer for all non-Catholics. That isn’t fair to you.)

Is it possible that misinformation has been willfully disseminated about the Catholic Church and that more of our beliefs and practices have been misrepresented in order to confuse and misguide people who are honestly seeking the truth?

In the words of my friends at the Mary Foundation…
GET THE FACTS…DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Pace:

We also have to be open to the possibility that the remaining orthodox, despairing over God’s apparent silence and indifference to their mental sufferings, sought to ‘bring down God’s fire’ on the world with The Passion of the Christ .

(But there is good news! God wasn’t indifferent to our sufferings. He gave us the two prophets David Lynch and Lars von Trier.)

Who?

The Passion of the Christ was a well done movie about its topic. However…it is not the topic of this thread. Please open your own thread to discuss it and your so-called prophets. I suggest the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

 

[jphilapy]

Church Militant:

So Jeff,
As a non-Catholic you are saying that to the best of your knowlege and capacity there is NO historic evidence that the Catholic Church went pagan after the death of the last apostle?
This means then that these alleged events did not occur and that the Catholic Church has indeed traced a direct line of apostolic succession back to the apostles and remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles for the last 2,000 plus years.

If what you say is true then why do we have these misguided allegations from non-Catholics on a regular basis? (I am speaking rhetorically here Jeff. I certainly don’t expect you to answer for all non-Catholics. That isn’t fair to you.)

Is it possible that misinformation has been willfully disseminated about the Catholic Church and that more of our beliefs and practices have been misrepresented in order to confuse and misguide people who are honestly seeking the truth?

In the words of my friends at the Mary Foundation…
GET THE FACTS…DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
Pax vobiscum,

MC I didn’t say anything about the catholic church apostating. I said that it is impossible to prove a complete apostasy, that is, an apostasy where there is not one single believer left. Wether the RC went astray or not is a different issue all together. Is it possible that the RC went astray? Maybe from your perspective it isn’t, but from an outsiders perspective it is possible. I mean if you guys can claim that the whole entire eastern half of the church went astray, then it is only fair that outsiders keep an open mind about the possibility that the western half went astray. If Elijah can live in a relgious nation that had the laws of God and the scriptures and the prophets and yet the majority of the nation is apostate then the same scenario is possible with the catholic church.

You have to admit if Elijah told Israel that they were fallen away, he would (and many prophets did) meet with the same kind of sarcasm from the Jews that one meets with here when suggesting the possiblity the catholic church could have apostated. In fact Elijah was actually right. It is only fair to learn from his experience. So this is the part where you say, ‘oh but we haven’t gone astray’. And then I say ‘well that is hard for me to judge because I have to do the research for it. even though I have done some research, many things still don’t pan out’. However it is right that you folks encourage research. Hopefully though there will be less bashing. (And yeah catholics are as guilty of bashing protestants as protestants are of catholics.)

Not every body is out to attack the catholic church. Many people have sincere questions and they genuinely research them. However after meeting with much harsh treatment from catholics it tends to make people embittered and turned off at the idea of even looking into the catholic church.

You have to understand that regardless of what you think about non-catholics or protestants, they are still people, and they may have very good reasons for why they don’t believe the catholic churches claims. But you will never see that if you treat every one like they are satan just because they have an objection.

Surely it can’t be that diffult to think of some possibly good reasons for why people are hesitant to believe the catholic church.

Jeff

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi ffeJ, (A take off your botching of my initials…LOL I thought it was funny.)

You make some very good points, but one thing you overlook. Catholics don’t go to Non-Catholic forums and “bash” their beliefs. I sure wouldn’t. I have been in bunches of non-Catholic services over the years and have had to listen to preachers rack Catholicism to their congregations as opposed to simply presenting the Gospel of salvation and letting the Holy Spirit do the job. I have yet to hear any of them express a clear understanding of what we believe as a result I no longer attend non-Catholic services. I go where I’ll get fed both the Word of God and the body and blood of Our Risen Lord.

Please don’t mistake our passion for aggression. We love our faith and so long as questions are asked with charity and respect, (The very way your posts have been of late.) we have no problems answering with equal charity and respect.

However, this allegation that we went pagan and have maintained that is one of the most annoying pieces of anti-Catholic rhetoric around. There is no evidence in the writings of the church fathers that there ever was a wholesale return to paganism…though virtually EVERY heresy that came down the pike IS documented by them and the answers that the Catholic Church made to them is part of that record. BTW the eastern church does not hold us as heretics and nor do we so hold them. Nestorius was one of their bishops, but we all handled him and that is no longer a problem, though the JWs have revived his heresy as part of their doctrine. (Off topic and so…dropped)

Keep asking Jeff…we’ll keep giving the best answers that we can find.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[TheGarg]

jphilapy:

I mean if you guys can claim that the whole entire eastern half of the church went astray, then it is only fair that outsiders keep an open mind about the possibility that the western half went astray.
Jeff

** Hello jeff, Peace of the Lord be with you.
I think you need to keep in mind that there was no Eastern “half”. It is more like an Eastern “fifth”.

The total global population for Eastern Orthodox is nowhere as many as the number of Roman Catholics [EO approx 220,000,000 / RCC approx 1,000,000,000 http://orlapubs.com/AR/R47.html”]source**].
The number of protestants is even lower.

I would highly suggest that you do some more study and find out why there are so “few” prots.
[yes, I lumped you all together, because there are just too many variants to list]

I personally see many more reasons not to be protestant than not to be a member of the Catholic Church, but hey, thats just my and 1 billion other Roman Catholics] humble Opinion.

In light of the question, since the “Great Apostasy” can’t be proved, the debate is really null.

Peace of the Lord be with you all!

 

[Psalm45_9]

Lisa4Catholics:

In order to sell their version unfortunately they try to prove hoe wrong everybody else is especially the Catholic Church.They feel a sense of empowerment by pointing fingers at the percieved wrongs of others.God Bless

I don’t know anyone like that.

 

[tkdnick]

I guess you could use some Bible verses (as I know LDS do) to try and prove a “Great Apostacy”. The problem being none of them say anything about a complete apostacy, they all talk about some people falling away. I have yet to see any evidence of a total apostacy. I have talked to many people who believe it occurred, but none of them can show me any actual evidence about it. Most of them just say it happened as if this is the most common and logical answer.

 

[Church_Militant]

tkdnick:

I guess you could use some Bible verses (as I know LDS do) to try and prove a “Great Apostacy”. The problem being none of them say anything about a complete apostacy, they all talk about some people falling away. I have yet to see any evidence of a total apostacy. I have talked to many people who believe it occurred, but none of them can show me any actual evidence about it. Most of them just say it happened as if this is the most common and logical answer.

As if perhaps the very statement irself makes it so?

 

[tkdnick]

Church Militant:

As if perhaps the very statement irself makes it so?

EXACTLY! In fact, I was talking to an LDS friend and I made some comment about the fact that there was no apostacy. Her response was: That’s exactly what happened. The church fell into apostacy and Joseph Smith restored it. She went into a little more detail. but it was as if by her simply saying it, it was totally true. As if everyone in their right mind knows that’s what happened.

 

[tkdnick]

Church Militant:

As if perhaps the very statement irself makes it so?

EXACTLY!

In fact, I was talking to an LDS friend and I made some comment about the fact that there was no apostacy. Her response was: That’s exactly what happened. The church fell into apostacy and Joseph Smith restored it. She went into a little more detail. but it was as if by her simply saying it, it was totally true. As if everyone in their right mind knows that’s what happened.

 

[BibleReader]

Maccabees:

Not only don’t you retract your statements you add to them. Look there was no “we” at the reformation. THis was 500 years ago? None of us were around then.

And the catholic church cannot be disgusting or in error.

Can the Catholic Church be “disgusting”?

What do you think the lawsuits are about?

You would argue, “Well, that’s not the Catholic Church.”

Yes, it is. When, very, very, very shortly after saying, “You are Petros and upon this petra I will build my Church…,” Jesus says to Peter, with obvious rage, “GET BEHIND ME, YOU SATAN!,” probably Jesus was preparing for us things like 50,000 lawsuits and prosecutions for engaging in perverted sex with young people.

If we deny this, people will not take the inspired side of the message seriously.

They will think, “Those Catholics are LIARS!”

Fine distinctions, such as, “Cardinal Law issuing a letter of recommendation for a known wildly-active pedophile priest, to send that perverted shepherd, the pedophile priesat, to a new unwary flock, is NOT the Church,” will be lost on your audience.

Keep the fine distinctions in your head.

 

[Church_Militant]

BibleReader:

Can the Catholic Church be “disgusting”?

What do you think the lawsuits are about?

You would argue, “Well, that’s not the Catholic Church.”

Yes, it is. When, very, very, very shortly after saying, “You are Petros and upon this petra I will build my Church…,” Jesus says to Peter, with obvious rage, “GET BEHIND ME, YOU SATAN!,” probably Jesus was preparing for us things like 50,000 lawsuits and prosecutions for engaging in perverted sex with young people.

If we deny this, people will not take the inspired side of the message seriously.

They will think, “Those Catholics are LIARS!”

Fine distinctions, such as, “Cardinal Law issuing a letter of recommendation for a known wildly-active pedophile priest, to send that perverted shepherd, the pedophile priesat, to a new unwary flock, is NOT the Church,” will be lost on your audience.

Keep the fine distinctions in your head.

Hey let’s get something straight… The Catholic Church is BEAUTIFUL. Some of the people w/in it are all too human pains in the backside and worse (in some cases).

I have never seen any “rage” in this passage that you use here. It’s a rebuke, but not as you portray it and I’ve never seen any commentary that says such a thing. I also don’t see ant idea of “preparation” that you speak of. I would suggest that the fact that most every letter to the churches in the NT deals with some sin of some kind (especially in Corinthians) is more of a “preparation” than the passage that you cite. See this and it’s commentary from the DRV on the passage in Matthew’s Gospel:21 From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. 22 And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. 23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

22 “And Peter taking him”… That is, taking him aside, out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his Lord and Master’s honour, began to expostulate with him, as it were to rebuke him, saying, Lord, far be it from thee to suffer death; but the Lord said to Peter, ver. 23, Go behind me, Satan. These words may signify, Begone from me; but the holy Fathers expound them otherwise, that is, come after me, or follow me; and by these words the Lord would have Peter to follow him in his suffering, and not to oppose the divine will by contradiction; for the word satan means in Hebrew an adversary, or one that opposes.

When soldiers are engaged in a battle, some will fall. That does not make the army less an army nor it’s soldiers less courageous and in the case of the Catholic Church any less true in it’s teachings and doctrines. We are engaged in a great spiritual battle and if anything the scandal and priest shortage should teach us that we have neglected to pray for vocations and for our clergy and bishops for far too long. If we had all prayed and fasted for them the way we have been asked to do for as long as I can remember, maybe, just maybe this disaster would have been averted. Gutless Catholics who fail to stand up for their faith and are willing to waste our time cryin’ about all the woes that they see as opposed to praying about them and then getting to work on the answers make me wanna spit.

I am also unsure of where you get all these numbers from…also…many of these cases are still out there as allegations. Until they are all resolved I wouldn’t rely on the so-called press for stats. I have personally seen guys accused of sex crimes and sent to prison that I KNOW are innocent, so I would never rush to judgement on anyone that I didn’t know for sure. There is always the possibilty of false witness (common in our society).

No one can or should deny this scandal…but calling the church disgusting is way outta line IMO.
Pax vobiscum,

This has drawn me off topic and I apologize but this needed to be said IMO. Please let’s get back to the actual topic of my original post.

 

[Pace]

Church Militant:

Who?

The Passion of the Christ was a well done movie about its topic. However…it is not the topic of this thread. Please open your own thread to discuss it and your so-called prophets. I suggest the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

My friend,

There are many people who don’t know, and consequently do not listen to, either David Lynch or Lars von Trier. Many of these same people will make the claim that “The Passion” is a “good” movie. I was wondering whether that split-mentality phenomenon might qualify as the final nail in the coffin in a great apostasy.

 

[jphilapy]

Church Militant:

Hi ffeJ, (A take off your botching of my initials…LOL I thought it was funny.)

haha, yeah I tend to have dislexic fingers.
Church Militant:

You make some very good points, but one thing you overlook. Catholics don’t go to Non-Catholic forums and “bash” their beliefs. I sure wouldn’t. I have been in bunches of non-Catholic services over the years and have had to listen to preachers rack Catholicism to their congregations as opposed to simply presenting the Gospel of salvation and letting the Holy Spirit do the job. I have yet to hear any of them express a clear understanding of what we believe as a result I no longer attend non-Catholic services. I go where I’ll get fed both the Word of God and the body and blood of Our Risen Lord.

Well I think you make a good point. I don’t attend non-catholic services. I meet with believers in homes. We don’t function on or around the “us vs them” principle. Sadly many people are united by what they are against and not by what they are for.

BTW thanks for being willing to answer my questions and so on. On the other side of this exchange I am willing to be blatant and honest in my questions as long as I know they will be received in love. I like to challenge people in discussion, unfortunately people sometimes take it the wrong way.
Church Militant:

However, this allegation that we went pagan and have maintained that is one of the most annoying pieces of anti-Catholic rhetoric around. There is no evidence in the writings of the church fathers that there ever was a wholesale return to paganism…though virtually EVERY heresy that came down the pike IS documented by them and the answers that the Catholic Church made to them is part of that record. BTW the eastern church does not hold us as heretics and nor do we so hold them. Nestorius was one of their bishops, but we all handled him and that is no longer a problem, though the JWs have revived his heresy as part of their doctrine. (Off topic and so…dropped)

I want to comment on this argument but I don’t have too many collected thoughts about this.

One thing is clear, there cannot ever be a complete apostasy. If there was then we would all be in the wrong and this conversation would be pointless.

However can there be a departure?

Based on my study of history I see good reason to conclude there was a departure.

For one the way the church accomplished it’s mission for the first 300 years is fundamentally different than how it accomplished after that period. In scripture Jesus made it clear that his kingdom was not to be advanced by war, instead it was to be advanced by love. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, christians understood him to be saying that we are to fight the fight with love. In those centuries christians were not permitted to be in a killing capacity in the military. If they were then they were rejected from fellowship. However after constantine enters the picture we find baptised professing christians making up his army. From what I understand, you could not be in the army unless you were baptised and professing christianity. And for the next 1500 years the catholic church used violence, force, military power etc to advance its agenda. Then likewise the protestant church followed suit, though on a much smaller scale. Regardless of what the scale is, I see no justification for advancing God’s kingdom in this way, and I tend to think that if they use such methods then it isn’t God’s kingdom they are advancing.

That appears to me as a departure.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Jeff

 

[Catholic_Dude]

jphilapy:

For one the way the church accomplished it’s mission for the first 300 years is fundamentally different than how it accomplished after that period. In scripture Jesus made it clear that his kingdom was not to be advanced by war, instead it was to be advanced by love. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, christians understood him to be saying that we are to fight the fight with love. In those centuries christians were not permitted to be in a killing capacity in the military. If they were then they were rejected from fellowship. However after constantine enters the picture we find baptised professing christians making up his army. From what I understand, you could not be in the army unless you were baptised and professing christianity. And for the next 1500 years the catholic church used violence, force, military power etc to advance its agenda. Then likewise the protestant church followed suit, though on a much smaller scale. Regardless of what the scale is, I see no justification for advancing God’s kingdom in this way, and I tend to think that if they use such methods then it isn’t God’s kingdom they are advancing.

That appears to me as a departure.
Jeff

Pardon my asking, but…
(First of all it wasnt the catholic church it was the Church!)
What do you mean by agenda?
When you say “fight the fight withe love” what is that supposed to mean? You hold up the Bible infront of a horde and they fall over? You have to defend yourself, both physically and spiritually. Look in Ecc 3:1-8…there is a time for war and a time for peace.
Then you say it changed after Constantine enters the picture…Yes, the tables were turned, no more spending your whole life watching you back risking the lions mouth. For “the next 1500 years” they were a large influence on different governing bodies, they werent the whipping boys, they now had a foot hold. One of the most cherished things about being Catholic is that our Pope doesnt sit around wasting his time with nobodies who want it their way. When the Pope speaks he speaks to entire nations, and sometimes the whole world. Now if that isnt a sign of God’s presence I dont know what is.

In terms of “love, love, love, all you need is love…” the early Christians didnt see slavery as something negative, nobody did. It is not condemned in the Bible. Now this is something that probably bothers you. Well thats the way it was. Things change.

“…rejected from fellowship” Around here thats a buzz word! Im sure they would rather celebrate the Mass in a Church in front of their Lord, instead of sitting around the campfire with nothing but the King James Version and a notebook!

Now when you talk about things changing after the first 300, guess what situations can and do change. The Church isnt Methuselah, It didnt vanish never to be seen again. It was meant to be a visible sign and part of every Christians life and it still stands today after the daily beating.

By “smaller scale” do you mean the protestants were just as brutal as those evil Catholics except they were only a fraction of them to get the job done?

Now that last sentence shows how isolated you are in term of reality. You are living a life of luxury and security. In reality it is a jungle out there and leadership and respect is required. Going out alone is a sure way to lose, and you know that the Church was the only thing standing durning the tough times.