The "Great Apostasy": History or Fiction?

[tsiyon]

I have been following this thread with great interest. In fact I have been an active “reader” of Catholic Answers for some time but have hesitated to be a member because of the fairly close mindedness that I find from both sides in the issues being discussed. Who wants to be assaulted from someone that doesn’t really care about your opinion but more about furthering their agenda. However it is killing me to be silent and so I became a member today.

I am a learner of all religions and do not know if Catholicism is the correct path when it comes to Christianity. Yet I can firmly hold to my belief that the Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to heavenly authority. I am sure many will agree on this point (with the exception of our Protestants readers of course). I classify most Christian churches that profess the Bible as the only needed authority for salvation as Protestants. This was the final doctrine (though not initially) of Martin Luther. However we can see that the Jewish authors of the Bible believed very much in an authority that transcends just written law.

Now the real question that we are viewing is whether the Catholic church has lost the heavenly authority or priesthood that it claims. I firmly believe that the Pope John Paul II can correctly trace his line of authority back to the early church. However I question if this line has electricity running through it?

I question the Church because from my studies I feel that it is quite possible that it is the Apostles that have authority to be the mouthpiece God’s church. I feel that the New Testament has draw a clear distinction between the role of Apostles and Bishops. I see no evidence that has given the apostolic authority over to Bishops. If I am correct then it is easy to see how the CC is in apostasia and I feel that the burden of truth actually falls on the Church to prove that Bishops now have the authority of Apostles.

Which brings up the question of Joe Smith and the Mormon Church. If the Catholic Church is wrong then it is accurate to believe that there needs to be a restoration of authority. Is this the Mormon church? This is a whole new thread and I am fairly certain that most of you are of the same opinion to the answer to this question. At least I can say that it is nice that the Mormons don’t fall into the Protestant category. I like the question posed earlier in this thread about whether or not we are still in a Great Apostasy.

Well, these are my thoughts and I now lay them before you to be picked apart and thrown to the wind.

P.S. I must agree with everyone else concerning Bible Reader’s comments. BR, what you are writing about is not the apostasy which deals with the question of authority. It seems to me that you are more proving wickedness within the Church. There has been wickednes within the church since the early Christians. Your examples do not necessarily prove an Apostasy but rather the debaseness of human nature. I strongly encourage you to begin a thread that furthers your interests in this subject.

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” ~Plato

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi tsiyon and http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/emoticons3/welcome!.gif

Thank you for your well thought out post. Please let me try to deal with your question since it is relevent to this thread.

You say:

I question the Church because from my studies I feel that it is quite possible that it is the Apostles that have authority to be the mouthpiece of God’s church. I feel that the New Testament has draw a clear distinction between the role of Apostles and Bishops. I see no evidence that has given the apostolic authority over to Bishops. If I am correct then it is easy to see how the CC is in apostasia and I feel that the burden of truth actually falls on the Church to prove that Bishops now have the authority of Apostles.

I would first point out that (Just for instance), according to the book of Acts St. James did indeed hold both positions as Apostle and Bishop, since he was bishop of Jerusalem, so it is Biblically clear that the two ministries can indeed be held by one person.

Also you will find a simple example of apostolic succession is Acts 1:15-26 in the election of Matthias to replace Judas Escariot.

You might also check out these tracts from the CA home page…
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
Good stuff all.
If I can assist in any other way, please feel free to PM me.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[tsiyon]

Church Militant:

I would first point out that (Just for instance), according to the book of Acts St. James did indeed hold both positions as Apostle and Bishop, since he was bishop of Jerusalem, so it is Biblically clear that the two ministries can indeed be held by one person.

Also you will find a simple example of apostolic succession is Acts 1:15-26 in the election of Matthias to replace Judas Escariot.

You might also check out these tracts from the CA home page…
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

CM, Thank you for your response. Does that mean your Pope is an Apostle? Is it possible to be an Apostle and a Bishop but not a Bishop and Apostle? Or in modern terms is it possible for the Pope to hold all the levels of authority in the CC but does a deacon have this same authority? I am sure that I am showing some of my ignorance here but for me it seems to be an important question.

Thank you also for the link. I went through all the information and gained a lot of understanding. My main problem comes from the statement:
“Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles.” catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

However I cannot see Apostles in the CC. A line of authority may be established for Bishops but the bishops were not the rock on which Jesus declared he would build his Church. Peter was the rock and his authority is his apostleship. I think this is really important and why I see a possibility of an Apostasy.

I read “Peter’s Successors” from the provided links and I don’t feel that these are adequate answers for a non-believing Catholic. The New Testament helps us recognize how the early church was established. The quotes that are provided in “Peter’s Successors” are post New Testament. From an outsiders view I could easily say that the Church had already gone into Apostasy after the last Apostle was killed and those quotes are used to justify an action that could possible be in error.

We see by your example in Acts that there is apostolic succession. Matthias was called to be an Apostle and not necessarily a Bishop. Now if your Pope is an Apostle then all my questions are fairly mute. However from what I understand the Pope is considered the Chief Bishop, right?

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” ~Plato

 

[MaggieOH]

BibleReader:

Hi, friends.

The Mormons were not the first to write about The Great Falling Away or Great Apostasy or however you wish to refer to it. We, the Catholic Church, were.

St. Paul, in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, in the Bible canon approved by our own Magisterium, first refers to it.

Paul uses the Greek version of the definite article “the” in the original Greek, before apostasia. As a consequence, the term is correctly translated “The Apostasy,” with the intent of suggesting the idea, “One heck of a great, big, giant, world-shaking apostasy.”

The term, and the concept, is not a Mormon invention.

Because our inspired Magisterium Church, by Pope Damasus I, adopted Paul’s prediction of The Apostasy into the Bible Canon, it functionally made Paul’s prediction of the coming Apostasy part of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching.

You must believe that a Great Apostasy will occur at some point, as a Catholic. It is Catholic doctrine before it is Mormon Doctrine or any other non-Catholic cult’s doctrine.

BR although you make several valid points, I would suggest that you still have not gotten the point of this thread. The original post stated that someone else on the forum made the allegation that Christianity was made corrupt around the time of Constantine.

The question of Apostasy is much greater than what you are throwing up, because the term was also used in the Old Testament. It means when the people turn away from God and follow other paths.

This particular allegation is one that we see regularly when talking to those who are either Mormons, SDA, JW or some other form of fundamentalism.

We will gain nothing from this discussion if you are going to continue to try and project this into something that is a future event.

Go back and read the Mormon material, because if they came knocking at your door and started talking about the Great Apostasy and that Joseph Smith was chosen by God to lead the remnant church, would you be able to respond by giving them the material and historical facts?

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

BibleReader:

I will assume that this thread is about Mormon thinking.

In my opinion, our Mormon brothers and sisters are dead wrong. In my opinion, they are wrong about when it will occur. The Mormons are ignoring Paul’s own words, connecting it to the end of time…

**1 ****We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, ****2 ****not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. ****3 **Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first [the day of the Lord will not arrive]. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.

Go and read what was claimed by Joseph Smith. We do not want your opinion that he was dead wrong and that it relates to some future event, we want you to look at the alleged historical evidence of an alleged Great Apostasy.

MaggieOH

 

[BibleReader]

MaggieOH:

Go and read what was claimed by Joseph Smith. We do not want your opinion that he was dead wrong and that it relates to some future event, we want you to look at the alleged historical evidence of an alleged Great Apostasy.

MaggieOH

I’ve said the most valuable thing, I think. Other than that, the Mormon material is just some anti-Catholic fantasy, I guess.

Everyone who’s not Catholic finds a reason for disagreeing.

 

[MaggieOH]

tsiyon:

I have been following this thread with great interest. In fact I have been an active “reader” of Catholic Answers for some time but have hesitated to be a member because of the fairly close mindedness that I find from both sides in the issues being discussed. Who wants to be assaulted from someone that doesn’t really care about your opinion but more about furthering their agenda. However it is killing me to be silent and so I became a member today.

I am a learner of all religions and do not know if Catholicism is the correct path when it comes to Christianity. Yet I can firmly hold to my belief that the Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to heavenly authority. I am sure many will agree on this point (with the exception of our Protestants readers of course). I classify most Christian churches that profess the Bible as the only needed authority for salvation as Protestants. This was the final doctrine (though not initially) of Martin Luther. However we can see that the Jewish authors of the Bible believed very much in an authority that transcends just written law.

Now the real question that we are viewing is whether the Catholic church has lost the heavenly authority or priesthood that it claims. I firmly believe that the Pope John Paul II can correctly trace his line of authority back to the early church. However I question if this line has electricity running through it?

I question the Church because from my studies I feel that it is quite possible that it is the Apostles that have authority to be the mouthpiece of God’s church. I feel that the New Testament has draw a clear distinction between the role of Apostles and Bishops. I see no evidence that has given the apostolic authority over to Bishops. If I am correct then it is easy to see how the CC is in apostasia and I feel that the burden of truth actually falls on the Church to prove that Bishops now have the authority of Apostles.

Which brings up the question of Joe Smith and the Mormon Church. If the Catholic Church is wrong then it is accurate to believe that there needs to be a restoration of authority. Is this the Mormon church? This is a whole new thread and I am fairly certain that most of you are of the same opinion to the answer to this question. At least I can say that it is nice that the Mormons don’t fall into the Protestant category. I like the question posed earlier in this thread about whether or not we are still in a Great Apostasy.

Well, these are my thoughts and I now lay them before you to be picked apart and thrown to the wind.

P.S. I must agree with everyone else concerning Bible Reader’s comments. BR, what you are writing about is not the apostasy which deals with the question of authority. It seems to me that you are more proving wickedness within the Church. There has been wickednes within the church since the early Christians. Your examples do not necessarily prove an Apostasy but rather the debaseness of human nature. I strongly encourage you to begin a thread that furthers your interests in this subject.

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” ~Plato

Hi and welcome,
this is a very well thought out post. You have posed some reasonably good questions that do get us back into the subject as we want to discuss it

With regard to your questions about Apostles and Bishops, I think that what is required here is a definition of “Apostle” and a definition of “Bishop”

The Apostolic Succession does not require a continuing class known as Apostles (that sounds like something from the Latter Rain website). What it truly requires is Ordination or the laying on of hands.

(to be continued)

 

[MaggieOH]

BibleReader:

I’ve said the most valuable thing, I think. Other than that, the Mormon material is just some anti-Catholic fantasy, I guess.

Everyone who’s not Catholic finds a reason for disagreeing.

Please stop hijacking this thread. Go and look at the original question and give it some correct context. This is getting very annoying.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

The next thing to do here is to define the word Apostle. What does this word mean?

Apostle - definition from gcide
Apostle \A*pos"tle, n. [OE. apostle, apostel, postle, AS.
apostol, L.** apostolus, fr. Gr. ? messenger, one sent forth or
away, fr. ? to send off or away; ? from + ? to send; akin to
G. stellen to set, E. stall: cf. F. ap^o]tre, Of. apostre,
apostle, apostele, apostole.]
1. Literally: One sent forth; a messenger. Specifically: One
** of the twelve disciples of Christ, specially chosen as his
companions and witnesses, and sent forth to preach the
gospel.
[1913 Webster]
**
He called unto him his disciples, and of them he
chose twelve, whom also he named apostles. --Luke
vi. 13.
[1913 Webster]

  Note: **The title of apostle is also applied to others, who,
        though not of the number of the Twelve, yet were equal
        with them in office and dignity; as, "Paul, called to
        be an apostle of Jesus Christ." --1 Cor. i. 1. In
        --Heb. iii. 1, the name is given to Christ himself, as
        having been sent from heaven to publish the gospel. In
        the primitive church, other ministers were called
        apostles --(Rom. xvi. 7).
        [1913 Webster]**

  2. The missionary who first plants the Christian faith in any
     part of the world; also, one who initiates any great moral
     reform, or first advocates any important belief; one who
     has extraordinary success as a missionary or reformer; as,
     Dionysius of Corinth is called the apostle of France, John
     Eliot the apostle to the Indians, Theobald Mathew the
     apostle of temperance.
     [1913 Webster]

  3. (Civ. & Admiralty Law) A brief letter dimissory sent by a
     court appealed from to the superior court, stating the
     case, etc.; a paper sent up on appeals in the admiralty
     courts. --Wharton. Burrill.
     [1913 Webster]

  Apostles' creed, a creed of unknown origin, which was
     formerly ascribed to the apostles. It certainly dates back
     to the beginning of the sixth century, and some assert
     that it can be found in the writings of Ambrose in the
     fourth century.

Apostle - definition from wn
apostle
n 1: an ardent early supporter of a cause or reform; “an apostle
of revolution”
2: any important early teacher of Christianity or a Christian
missionary to a people [syn: Apostle]
3: (New Testament) one of the original 12 disciples chosen by
Christ to preach his gospel syn: Apostle

 

[MaggieOH]

Apostle - definition from easton
Apostle
** a person sent by another; a messenger; envoy. This word is once
used as a descriptive designation of Jesus Christ, the Sent of
the Father (Heb. 3:1; John 20:21). It is, however, generally
used as designating the body of disciples to whom he intrusted**
** the organization of his church and the dissemination of his
gospel, “the twelve,” as they are called (Matt. 10:1-5; Mark
3:14; 6:7; Luke 6:13; 9:1).** We have four lists of the apostles,
one by each of the synoptic evangelists (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark
3:16; Luke 6:14), and one in the Acts (1:13). No two of these
lists, however, perfectly coincide.

    ** Our Lord gave them the "keys of the kingdom," and by the gift
   of his Spirit fitted them to be the founders and governors of
   his church (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-15). To them, as
   representing his church, he gave the commission to "preach the
   gospel to every creature" (Matt. 28:18-20). After his ascension
   he communicated to them, according to his promise, supernatural
   gifts to qualify them for the discharge of their duties (Acts
   2:4; 1 Cor. 2:16; 2:7, 10, 13; 2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Cor. 11:2). Judas
   Iscariot, one of "the twelve," fell by transgression, and
   Matthias was substituted in his place (Acts 1:21). Saul of
   Tarsus was afterwards added to their number (Acts 9:3-20;** 20:4;
   26:15-18; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).
   
     Luke has given some account of Peter, John, and the two
   Jameses (Acts 12:2, 17; 15:13; 21:18), but beyond this we know
   nothing from authentic history of the rest of the original
   twelve. After the martyrdom of James the Greater (Acts 12:2),
   James the Less usually resided at Jerusalem, while Paul, "the
   apostle of the uncircumcision," usually travelled as a
   missionary among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8). It was characteristic
   of the apostles and necessary (1) that they should have seen the
   Lord, and been able to testify of him and of his resurrection
   from personal knowledge (John 15:27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1 Cor. 9:1;
   Acts 22:14, 15). (2.) They must have been immediately called to
   that office by Christ (Luke 6:13; Gal. 1:1). (3.) It was
   essential that they should be infallibly inspired, and thus
   secured against all error and mistake in their public teaching,
   whether by word or by writing (John 14:26; 16:13; 1 Thess.
   2:13).
   
  **   (4.) Another qualification was the power of working miracles
   (Mark 16:20; Acts 2:43; 1 Cor. 12:8-11). The apostles therefore
   could have had no successors. They are the only authoritative
   teachers of the Christian doctrines. The office of an apostle
   ceased with its first holders.**
   
     In 2 Cor. 8:23 and Phil. 2:25 the word "messenger" is the
   rendering of the same Greek word, elsewhere rendered "apostle."

Apostle - definition from moby-thesaurus
49 Moby Thesaurus words for “apostle”:
Aaronic priesthood, Ambrose of Milan, Athanasius, Barnabas, Basil,
Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Hermas, Ignatius, Irenaeus,
Jerome, John, John Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Lactantius Firmianus,
Luke, Mark, Melchizedek priesthood, Origen, Papias, Paul, Peter,
Polycarp, Seventy, Tertullian, ante-Nicene Fathers, bishop,
colporteur, convert, converter, deacon, disciple, elder,
evangelist, follower, high priest, missionary, missioner,
patriarch, priest, propagandist, proselyte, proselyter,
proselytizer, saint, teacher

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi tsiyon!
I’ll try to take your questions in order.

1.Does that mean your Pope is an Apostle?
2. Is it possible to be an Apostle and a Bishop but not a Bishop and Apostle?
3. Or in modern terms is it possible for the Pope to hold all the levels of authority in the CC but does a deacon have this same authority? I am sure that I am showing some of my ignorance here but for me it seems to be an important question.

It’s not ingnorance…it’s wisdom in asking good questions.
1.Yes.
2. No. We consider all bishops apostles, though not all apostles are bishops in the NT. {St.Paul…} (You might take this question into the AAA forum and let one of their apologists get into it better than I can, unless someone comes along that can answer that more clearly than I can.)
3.Unsure what you mean by “all levels of authority”, but off the top of my head, I would say that He hold authority as a priest, bishop, and apostle. He has been a great leader and shepherd for us all. A deacon however holds none of those positions since he is not a priest and as such cannot hold the position of bishop.
Biblical evidence: Ephesians 4:11-15

11"** And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, **

12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,

13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,

14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.

15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, "

However I cannot see Apostles in the CC. A line of authority may be established for Bishops but the bishops were not the rock on which Jesus declared he would build his Church. Peter was the rock and his authority is his apostleship. I think this is really important and why I see a possibility of an Apostasy.

I read “Peter’s Successors” from the provided links and I don’t feel that these are adequate answers for a non-believing Catholic. The New Testament helps us recognize how the early church was established. The quotes that are provided in “Peter’s Successors” are post New Testament

. From an outsiders view I could easily say that the Church had already gone into Apostasy after the last Apostle was killed and those quotes are used to justify an action that could possible be in error.

We see by your example in Acts that there is apostolic succession. Matthias was called to be an Apostle and not necessarily a Bishop. Now if your Pope is an Apostle then all my questions are fairly mute. However from what I understand the Pope is considered the Chief Bishop, right?

Consider this quote from Pope Clement I:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Now St John was the last to die…(Not killed BTW) and he was still alive at the time when this was written since he died in about 99 AD or so. (I think) [Somebody check me on this date willya?] So then this is not something that was post apostolic or post NT since the NT was not even finished being written as yet (It was written between about 56 and 99 AD)

You are quite right in saying that JP2 is the chief bishop just as Peter was chief apostle in his day. Bishops are elders…that’s what the Greek word means in the NT. John Paul II is also called “the servant of the servants of the Church.”

The Pope is indeed an apostle, so in that respect, some of this is probably moot point as you put it. I would urge you to pose that question to the Ask An Apologist forum and lemme know just what you get for an answer, okay?

Hopefully I haven’t sent ya running, screaming for the door
Pax vobiscum,

 

[MaggieOH]

As you can see from the lengthy definition that I have provided for the term Apostle, the Scriptural meaning of the word is “Missionary” or One who is sent forth.

The next question is what is meant by “Bishop”?

The difference between the two I believe rests upon what is stated by St. Peter when he made the decision that Judas Iscariot must be replaced:

“Let his camp be reduced to ruin,
Let their be no one to live in it,
Let someone else take his office” (Acts 1:20)

This is the first clue to the definition of Bishop, for in some translations the word is not “office” but “bishopric”

As I understand the term, Bishop means an overseer. He is the one who is the leader of those who have been chosen to serve underneath him. However let us go see how the word is defined:

Bishop - definition from gcide
Bishop \Bish"op, n. [OE. bischop, biscop, bisceop, AS. bisceop,
** biscop, L. episcopus overseer, superintendent, bishop, fr.
Gr. ?, ? over + ? inspector, fr. root of ?, ?, to look to,
perh. akin to L. specere to look at. See Spy, and cf.
Episcopal.]
[1913 Webster]
** 1. A spiritual overseer, superintendent, or director.**
[1913 Webster]

            Ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned
            unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. --1 Pet.
                                                  ii. 25.
      [1913 Webster]

            It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians
            of all shades of opinion, that in the language of
            the New Testament the same officer in the church is
            called indifferently "bishop" ( ? ) and "elder" or
            "presbyter."                          --J. B.
                                                  Lightfoot.
      [1913 Webster]

** 2. In the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Anglican or Protestant
Episcopal churches, one ordained to the highest order of
the ministry, superior to the priesthood, and generally
claiming to be a successor of the Apostles. The bishop is
usually the spiritual head or ruler of a diocese,
bishopric, or see.**
[1913 Webster]

   Bishop in partibus [infidelium] (R. C. Ch.), a bishop of a
      see which does not actually exist; one who has the office
      of bishop, without especial jurisdiction. --Shipley.

   Titular bishop (R. C. Ch.), a term officially substituted
      in 1882 for bishop in partibus.

   Bench of Bishops. See under Bench.
      [1913 Webster]

 

[MaggieOH]

cont

3. In the Methodist Episcopal and some other churches, one of
      the highest church officers or superintendents.
      [1913 Webster]



            If, by her bishop, or her "grace" alone,
            A genuine lady, or a church, is known. --Saxe.
      [1913 Webster]

Bishop \Bish"op\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Bishoped; p. pr. & vb.
   n. Bishoping.]
   To admit into the church by confirmation; to confirm; hence,
   to receive formally to favor.
   [1913 Webster]

Bishop - definition from wn
bishop
n 1: a clergyman having spiritual and administrative authority;
appointed in Christian churches to oversee priests or
ministers; considered in some churches to be successors
of the twelve apostles of Christ
2: port wine mulled with oranges and cloves
3: (chess) a piece that can be moved diagonally over unoccupied
squares of the same color

Bishop - definition from easton
Bishop
an overseer. In apostolic times, it is quite manifest that there
was no difference as to order between bishops and elders or
presbyters (Acts 20:17-28; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3).
The term bishop is never once used to denote a different office
from that of elder or presbyter. These different names are
simply titles of the same office, “bishop” designating the
function, namely, that of oversight, and “presbyter” the dignity
appertaining to the office. Christ is figuratively called “the
bishop [episcopos] of souls” (1 Pet. 2:25).

Bishop - definition from bouvier
BISHOP. An ecclesiastical officer, who is the chief of the clergy of his
diocese, and is the archbishop’s assistant. Happily for this country, these
officers are not recognized by law. They derive all their authority from the
churches over which they preside. Bishop’s COURT, Eng. law. An
ecclesiastical court held in the cathedral of each diocese, the judge of
which is the bishop’s chancellor.

Bishop - definition from moby-thesaurus
53 Moby Thesaurus words for “bishop”:
Aaronic priesthood, Grand Penitentiary, Holy Father,
Melchizedek priesthood, Seventy, abuna, antipope, apostle,
archbishop, archdeacon, archpriest, bishop coadjutor, canon,
cardinal, cardinal bishop, cardinal deacon, cardinal priest,
castle, chaplain, chessman, coadjutor, curate, deacon, dean,
diocesan, ecclesiarch, elder, exarch, hierarch, high priest, king,
knight, man, metropolitan, papa, patriarch, pawn, penitentiary,
piece, pontiff, pope, prebendary, prelate, priest, primate, queen,
rector, rook, rural dean, subdean, suffragan, teacher, vicar

 

[tsiyon]

Thanks Maggie & CM your comments were quite helpful and very cordial. I agree with Maggie that we have to come to a definition of what a NT Bishop and Apostle is. That will make things much clearer. Also I appreciate your wealth of knowledge on the subject CM. I will talk to an apologist to see if he or she concurs with your conclusions. I have never heard anyone refer to the Pope as an Apostle so I want to search this out some more. Thanks again for a very pleasant first encounter. You didn’t make me run for the door.

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” ~Plato

 

[Church_Militant]

tsiyon:

Thanks Maggie & CM your comments were quite helpful and very cordial. I agree with Maggie that we have to come to a definition of what a NT Bishop and Apostle is. That will make things much clearer. Also I appreciate your wealth of knowledge on the subject CM. I will talk to an apologist to see if he or she concurs with your conclusions. I have never heard anyone refer to the Pope as an Apostle so I want to search this out some more. Thanks again for a very pleasant first encounter. You didn’t make me run for the door.

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” ~Plato

You’re always quite welcome!

 

[tkdnick]

Hey Militant:

You haven’t seemed to have gotten much response on what you were looking for. Could we maybe change gears and ask for proofs against the “Great Apostasy”? That might get more response and might even bring in some of the LDS posters to this site.

(I confess I also have an ulterior motive. I will be having the “Great Apostasy” discussion with some LDS friends in the next week or two and could use some more backup. If you would prefer, I could start a new thread though.)

 

[Church_Militant]

tkdnick:

Hey Militant:

You haven’t seemed to have gotten much response on what you were looking for. Could we maybe change gears and ask for proofs against the “Great Apostasy”? That might get more response and might even bring in some of the LDS posters to this site.

(I confess I also have an ulterior motive. I will be having the “Great Apostasy” discussion with some LDS friends in the next week or two and could use some more backup. If you would prefer, I could start a new thread though.)

I agree! Let’s roll with it then! You start.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[MaggieOH]

I think that is a good idea. The best place to start is to post the claims that are being made about the Great Apostasy from one of their sites. We will take it from there.

Also I suggest that we look for other denominations who make the same claim and see how far the claims can be traced.

Maggie
(itching to get into knocking the Trail of Blood)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

hows this?

jehovah.to/exe/general/apostasy.htm
This seems to indicate the apostasy went from 100-1914AD

 

[MaggieOH]

Catholic Dude:

hows this?

jehovah.to/exe/general/apostasy.htm
This seems to indicate the apostasy went from 100-1914AD

Hey Dude,

that was a good link. It gives us the Jehovah’s Witness perspective. I have already posted a Mormon link so now we need an SDA link or links to other denominations that teach the same thing.

Maggie