The Great Apostasy

[seamusmohr]

[/quote]

richly ironic considering the breadth of traditions and Churches represented within the Catholic Church.

You are a ,‘catholic,’ only in the wider sense in that everyone who is validly baptised is a catholic! You are in fact a Roman Catholic and as I have explained to you, Romanism, as I was taught, is a Sect! A catholic one mayhap, but never the less a 16th,Cent, sect!
[/quote]

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6585204:

Nicea325;6584309:

UNBELIEVABLE! WRONG,WRONG! I gave you simply one quote from Cyprian and Augustine and you are still going to tell me they REJECTED Roman claims? You are something else

.

S.Cyprian speaking of the Matthew 16, says quite openly.’
"The ordination of Bishops and the Constitution of the Church is carried down, so that the Church is set up on the Bishops and every act of the Church is controlled by these same superiors.".

[quoteI cannot believe how you balantly IGNORE what the church fathers said. You cannot FABRICATE history up. And I have PROVIDED and CLEARLY from Cyprian’s and Augustine’s OWN mouths what they SAID,not from so-called reputable scholars. Cyprian’s and Augustine’s words are PRIMARY sources and that you have not and will not rebuke it with second hand sources.

**It is true I cannot read the Greek or latin. If you can you’r lucky, but I have have every confidence in the scholar’s I quote, they have stood the test of time, somehow I don’t think your labours, in this endevour, will!
**

If James, and not Peter, held the primacy as some would have us believe, then why is he not mentioned even once

by a single Church Father or early writer as holding that office?

**There’s no primacy, you are living in a fairy tale the Apostles were a college.Neither have you produced any real evidence for this opinion. called,"The type of the world,“the light of the Churches,” and the ,“basis of the faith” as well as

**S.John was described by S.Chrysostom as,“Pillar of all the Churches in the world, who hath the Keys of the Kingdom. of heaven. [Horn in S.Johann.]” While S.Paul is , "the pillar and ground of the truth.****called,“The type of the world,“the light of the Churches,” and the ,“basis of the faith” as well as
"S.James the brother of Our Lord," by the Clementines,“bishop of bishops,” and by the Recognitions,i 68 ] “Prince of Bishops;” By Rufinus, [Hist,Ecc., ] "Bishops of the Apostles.”
By Heysichius, quoted by Photius,"Chief captain of the New Jerusalem,“leader of the priests”. “Exarch of the Apostles.”
Sorry,but you are simply turning the blind eye for your novelties and are dead wrong no matter how much you wish it not to be true.
Imagine, had these things been said of S.Peter, you would have time on your hands.

[/QUOTE]

 

[seamusmohr]

[/quote]

I feel the same about the term ,Protestant, so I will not use the term you mention out of courtesy to yourself.I should point out that it was not meant to be used offensively.

Seamus Mohr
[/quote]

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6586899:

Imagine, had these things been said of S.Peter, you would have time on your hands.

Denial,denial,denial.

Sorry,but you are wrong again and again,no matter how much you wish to deny it.And nothing you say is going to re-write what the early church fathers had to say about the papacy. You simply want history to be what you wish it should be.

BTW: The primacy is a fairy-tale? LOL! That alone is proof you have not provided a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE where ONE church father wrote exhaustively DENYING the primacy of Rome and it is a usurpation of Christ. Show me the primary sources?

The discussion is over, history is not on your side. Time to do your homework.Instead of reading what second hand sources claim,try reading the actual works of the church fathers.

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6589670:

Denial,denial,denial.

Sorry,but you are wrong again and again,no matter how much you wish to deny it.And nothing you say is going to re-write what the early church fathers had to say about the papacy. You simply want history to be what you wish it should be.

**St Clement of Alexandria denies all primacy, at least as desired by human pride, when he says that for the disciples, due to their “disputing for primacy, Christ made a law of equality, saying, ‘Ye must become as little children.’” (Stromat. Fifth Book, fifth section).

In dispute with St Stephen of Rome, St Cyprian makes the following pointed protest: “Let each one give his opinion without judging any one and without separating from the Communion those who are not of his opinion; for none of us sets himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his brethren to obey him by means of tyrannical terror, every bishop having full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another. Let us all wait the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our conduct.” (Concil. carth.) St Cyprian also says, even while explaining Petrine Primacy, in his Treatise upon Church Unity that “The other apostles certainly were just what Peter was, having the same honour and power as he.”

St Hilary of Poitiers, speaking of Pope Liberius’ weakness in confession of the divinity of Christ: “I say to thee anathema, O Liberius, to thee and to thine accomplices. I repeat, anathema. And again I say it to thee a third time; to thee, Liberius, then prevaricator.”

**St Ambrose explains Petrine Primacy with notable reserve: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank” (On the Incarnation)

St Jerome, who in his early career had exalted Roman prerogatives in frustration at the confused and divided state of the Eastern bishops, later said this: “We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world.* Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth.* If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood” (Epistle 146)

Was it not S.Luke who wrote about “Enthusiasm without knowledge”?

**

 

[AtticusFinch]

For there to have been the total apostasy that the LDS needs, Jesus would have had to be a liar, very weak, and incredibly cruel.

While is it easy for Mormons to believe that about Christ, I simply cannot.

 

[ParkerD]

For there to have been the total apostasy that the LDS needs, Jesus would have had to be a liar, very weak, and incredibly cruel.

While is it easy for Mormons to believe that about Christ, I simply cannot.

The LDS don’t believe those qualities about Christ, obviously.

But Christ is amazingly patient and amazingly good at granting agency and free will to humankind, despite their best efforts to force people to believe what they themselves think those other people should believe, including their own children.

The granting of free will agency is one of the greatest gifts God has given to humankind. We should use it as well as we can, and follow the example of Christ in how we treat others with respect to both allowing free will agency and allowing for disagreement because everyone is not going to see the world out of the same set of lenses.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The LDS don’t believe those qualities about Christ, obviously.

But Christ is amazingly patient and amazingly good at granting agency and free will to humankind, despite their best efforts to force people to believe what they themselves think those other people should believe, including their own children.

 

[AtticusFinch]

The LDS don’t believe those qualities about Christ, obviously.

No, it is not obvious. For their to be an Apostasy, Jesus was a weak, cruel liar.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6592629:

seamusmohr;6589670:

Denial,denial,denial.

**St Clement of Alexandria denies all primacy, at least as desired by human pride, when he says that for the disciples, due to their “disputing for primacy, Christ made a law of equality, saying, ‘Ye must become as little children.’” (Stromat. Fifth Book, fifth section).

In dispute with St Stephen of Rome, St Cyprian makes the following pointed protest: “Let each one give his opinion without judging any one and without separating from the Communion those who are not of his opinion; for none of us sets himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his brethren to obey him by means of tyrannical terror, every bishop having full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another. Let us all wait the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our conduct.” (Concil. carth.) St Cyprian also says, even while explaining Petrine Primacy, in his Treatise upon Church Unity that “The other apostles certainly were just what Peter was, having the same honour and power as he.”

St Hilary of Poitiers, speaking of Pope Liberius’ weakness in confession of the divinity of Christ: “I say to thee anathema, O Liberius, to thee and to thine accomplices. I repeat, anathema. And again I say it to thee a third time; to thee, Liberius, then prevaricator.”

**St Ambrose explains Petrine Primacy with notable reserve: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank” (On the Incarnation)

St Jerome, who in his early career had exalted Roman prerogatives in frustration at the confused and divided state of the Eastern bishops, later said this: “We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world.* Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth.* If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood” (Epistle 146)

Was it not S.Luke who wrote about “Enthusiasm without knowledge”?

**

Again,no offense,but I do not accept your interpretations of the early church fathers. As noted a few replies back,there is plenty of early church sources clearly showing both Eastern and Western church fathers from across the Roman Empire appealing to Rome.

If Rome had no primacy as you claim,then why would ANY bishop from his own diocese have to appeal to Rome for Rome’s decisions on doctrinal matters? Why not settle any dispute in-house?

Once again,history is not on your side.

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6594832:

Nicea325;6592629:

If Rome had no primacy as you claim,then why would ANY bishop from his own diocese have to appeal to Rome for Rome’s decisions on doctrinal matters? Why not settle any dispute in-house?
Once again,history is not on your side.

**Had you read the quotes from S.Cyprian, and the various Councils of Carthage you would have found the answers to your question over Roman Primacy and dissident bishops. If you read the canons of the early Ecumenical Councils as I have shown you in adequate and acceptable detail, you would see that Rome gained its primacy through the Councils and the Emperor!

I do not wish to keep up a discussion where neither party is able to agree with the other disputant, so if you do not mind I will, in this instance call it a day!**

 

[seamusmohr]

Nicea325;6604272:

seamusmohr;6594832:

Primacy," Synodicality and Unity of the Church

“Papal ‘primacy’ has no theological foundation, no legitimacy from the Holy Spirit and no ecclesiological legitimacy. It is clearly based on a worldly understanding of authority.” This, among other things, was the conclusion of the theological conference which was organized by the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus in the Peace and Friendship Stadium (Melina Mercouri Hall) on 28 April 2010,." from a Conference held by the Orthodox

This I received today by e.mail from Palestine!

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6604272:

seamusmohr;6594832:

**Had you read the quotes from S.Cyprian, and the various Councils of Carthage you would have found the answers to your question over Roman Primacy and dissident bishops. If you read the canons of the early Ecumenical Councils as I have shown you in adequate and acceptable detail, you would see that Rome gained its primacy through the Councils and the Emperor!

I do not wish to keep up a discussion where neither party is able to agree with the other disputant, so if you do not mind I will, in this instance call it a day!**

With all due respect,I already mentioned to you way back I have plenty PRIMARY sources on the early councils and the ECF.

And second of all,it is totally BOGUS that Rome solely gained its primacy through councils and the Emperor…that is ABSOLUTELY wrong. Tell me the name of the pagan Roman Emperor prior to Constantine and Nicaea in 325 A.D.,which gave Rome the primacy?

I’ll ask you again,if the councils/emperor gave Rome the primacy,then answer my question:

If Rome had no primacy,until given as you claim, then why would ANY bishop PRIOR to any ecumenical council go/write to Rome for an appeal or decision regarding doctrinal matters?

Why not settle the matter in-house,if Rome has no primacy?

 

[StrawberryJam]

seamusmohr;6606134:

Nicea325;6604272:

With all due respect,I already mentioned to you way back I have plenty PRIMARY sources on the early councils and the ECF.

And second of all,it is totally BOGUS that Rome solely gained its primacy through councils and the Emperor…that is ABSOLUTELY wrong. Tell me the name of the pagan Roman Emperor prior to Constantine and Nicaea in 325 A.D.,which gave Rome the primacy?

I’ll ask you again,if the councils/emperor gave Rome the primacy,then answer my question:

If Rome had no primacy,until given as you claim, then why would ANY bishop PRIOR to any ecumenical council go/write to Rome for an appeal or decision regarding doctrinal matters?

Why not settle the matter in-house,if Rome has no primacy?

Now, don’t get upset with me for asking, but are you certian that these letters asking for an apeal or decision regarding doctrinal matters are authentic?

 

[seamusmohr]

Why not settle the matter in-house,if Rome has no primacy?

As the Councils of Carthage [especially 418/9 renewed 424. ] show very clearly,the African Bishops did settle ,‘in house,’ their problems. They rejected very obviously the Bishop of Rome’s disastrous attempt to mediate!

If Rome had no primacy,until given as you claim, then why would ANY bishop PRIOR to any ecumenical council go/write to Rome for an appeal or decision regarding doctrinal matters?

You have yet to show that any did, other than those who held Rome as Metropolitan or Patriarch and who are duty bound to, by Church regulations,

If Rome had no primacy,until given as you claim, then why would ANY bishop PRIOR to any ecumenical council go/write to Rome for an appeal or decision regarding doctrinal matters?

Because Rome was the capital of the Western World and it was founded by two apostles . Also, the people who went in many cases were such as Apiarius a scoundrel who was desperate, who went to Rome twice and was accepted,[illegally,] but later admitted the sexual charges against him leaving the pope with egg all over his face and garments!

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6607775:

seamusmohr;6606134:

Now, don’t get upset with me for asking, but are you certian that these letters asking for an apeal or decision regarding doctrinal matters are authentic?

Yep! Want the cases with the names of the bishops involved?

 

[Nicea325]

As the Councils of Carthage [especially 418/9 renewed 424. ] show very clearly,the African Bishops did settle ,‘in house,’ their problems. They rejected very obviously the Bishop of Rome’s disastrous attempt to mediate!

Oh of course,the favorite anti-papal apologists is the assertion that in early centuries the Church in North Africa resisted papal jurisdiction.The facts of history contradict these claims. The Church’s dealings as in the case with the heretic Pelagius (born c. 354) demonstrate that the bishops of North Africa were by no means restive under papal jurisdiction. Quite the contrary.

When confronted, Pelagius declared his conformity with the Church’s teaching. As soon as he was absolved of heresy, he resumed teaching it. He moved on to Palestine, but Celestius remained in North Africa. Because he openly taught the Pelagian heresy, a synod of Carthage, held in 412, condemned him. The synod informed the Pope of its action. Why INFORM the pope at all,if no such primacy existed?

Celestius appealed to Rome for reversal of his conviction. The African bishops raised no objection to his appeal. They recognized that, when the truth of the faith was at stake, the final word lay with Rome. Instead of going to Rome, Celestius went to the East to secure ordination to the priesthood before he was finally condemned. He was ordained in Ephesus.

According to advocates of the conciliar theory, the action taken at Carthage and Milevis should have ended the matter,which begs the question:

So why did both councils appeal to Rome?

Simple. Their declaration that Pelagius and Celestius were heretics, condemned until they recanted, was binding only in Africa, in their part of the Church. A decision by the Pope—and only a decision by the Pope—would bind the entire Church. They were clearly not opposing the Pope’s authority; they were pleading for it to be exercised.

Try again.

You have yet to show that any did, other than those who held Rome as Metropolitan or Patriarch and who are duty bound to, by Church regulations,

Glad you finally asked.

Because Rome was the capital of the Western World and it was founded by two apostles . Also, the people who went in many cases were such as Apiarius a scoundrel who was desperate, who went to Rome twice and was accepted,[illegally,] but later admitted the sexual charges against him leaving the pope with egg all over his face and garments!

Yes Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire and founded by two Apostles. More important, primacy always lied with Peter and his successors and Peter lived out the rest of his years in Rome.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea Quote:
Why not settle the matter in-house,if Rome has no primacy?

**As the Councils of Carthage [especially 418/9 renewed 424. ] show very clearly,the African Bishops did settle ,‘in house,’ their problems. They rejected very obviously the Bishop of Rome’s disastrous attempt to mediate! **

Not true. If they rejected it,then explain the following:

Innocent I praises the Council of Carthage in 417 that it has “kept and confirmed the example of ancient discipline”:

You (African bishops) have referred to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, from which the episcopate itself and all authority of this name has come…You know that nothing even the most distant provinces is to be settled until it comes to the knowledge of this see (Rome);so that the decision be established by the whole authority of this see.

Want more?

I’ll ask again,show me the overwheling writings from the African bishops explicitly showing African bishops rejecting ANY primacy? And please do not tell me they just went with the flow and kept silent.

Nicea Quote:
If Rome had no primacy,until given as you claim, then why would ANY bishop PRIOR to any ecumenical council go/write to Rome for an appeal or decision regarding doctrinal matters?

You have yet to show that any did, other than those who held Rome as Metropolitan or Patriarch and who are duty bound to, by Church regulations,

Apparently by you asking or questioning it is a clear indication you have not studied or read the church fathers writings enough.

Not a problem. Do you want sources prior to any ecumenical council or after? Here I’ll give you one after Nicaea 325 from St. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea, 370-379, an eastern bishop; whose region was torn by heresy and schisms,**writing **to Pope Damasus in 371 (10 years before the Council of Constantinople in 381):

Our only hope is in a visitation from Your Clemency.Send us men who share our faith. They will settle quarrels, they will bring union to the Churches of God; at least they will make known to you the authors of the troubles, so that you will know whom to admit to your communion.

Then St,Basil writes to Athanasius, another Eastern bishop:

We thought we ought to write to the Bishop of Rome, that he should examine our affairs…that he should use authority in the manner, choosing men fit to to bear the toil of the journey, fit also gently and firmly to crrect the perverse amnong us.

Now if you claim ALL matters were settled ‘in-house’ in their own dioceses/regions, I’ll ask you again:

Why would ANY Eastern bishop feel compelled to even WRITE to the Bishop of Rome to settle or intervene in ANY matters outside of Rome and the Italian peninsula?

I can provide more and more cases where both Eastern and Western bishops followed the same path. Why would any church father fabricate a falsehood which can easily be debunked or proven as false?

St.Ambrose and other bishops of Italy, writing to the Emperor Theodosius about the affair of Antioch in 381 an **Eastern **region, remind him that:

“Anthanasius and Peter, Bishops of Alexandria, and many Easterns, appealed to the judgment of the Church of rome, of Italy and all of the West.”

There is that key word again: appeal. Is Ambrose being biased or simply lying about Rome having any primacy?

I’ll give you another one. When Denis of Alexandria (An eastern See and one of great importance) was suspect of false doctrine, some members of his OWN diocese **WENT **to Rome and DENOUNCED him to Denis of Rome (259-269). The Pope wrote to his namesake to hear his side of the case; Denis of Alexandria ‘cleared himself’ and all was well. Here is an Eastern bishop, a very great man indeed, for he was the second patriarch in Christendom,suspect and accused by his very own member of his diocese. Where is he ACCUSED? At Rome where he defends himself to the Bishop of Rome.

Why would the SECOND patriarch of Christendom need to appeal to Rome to defend himself, if according to you ALL church father rejected Roman claims or settled matters ‘in-house’?

I’ll ask you again,if all matters where settled ‘in-house’ then why even BOTHER to ask or go to Rome to have the Roman Bishop intervene?

Sorry,but history will continue to prove you wrong over and over and no amount of denials will change the facts of history.

 

[pinay]

pinay - This may seem like an obvious question that has probably been asked thousands of times already…

Wouldn’t somebody have noticed the “great apostasy” before Joseph Smith?

Catholics, Jews and Protestants have been debating/writing about religion for years and nobody thought to bring it up? Not even the great minds of Aquinas, Augustine, Luther…

Hi Lax. Sorry, it took me a long time to answer. I’m new to forums and I didn’t realize how time consuming this is. I do enjoy reading all these posts though - well, except for the contentious ones.

Okay, yes, people noticed. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any need to depart from the Catholic church. Luther had no intentions of leaving the Catholic faith, that is true, although he saw apostate practices his main drive was to “fix it” and not depart from it.

No, I don’t believe that Protestant faiths as well as the different Catholic denominations departed solely because of pride or somebody wanting to get a divorce, or what-have-you. Mostly, they saw something wrong (in their point of view, of course) and rebelled against it. Unfortunately, in the Roman Catholic and LDS point of view, they left without authority, so they became apostate themselves.

The only churches the Great Apostasy is relevant to is the Catholic and LDS churches - and since I’m not familiar with any of the other Catholic denominations, I’m going to further qualify this with just Roman Catholic and LDS. Protestant churches, in my understanding, do not believe in apostolic succession, therefore, an apostasy holds no meaning for them.

Any scripture on the great apostasy, will NEVER be found in any Catholic scripture. And since the Bible is a Catholic scripture - you will see hints of it there but not an admission of it occurring. Whatever document there is wouldn’t be on the Catholic Bible. Hence, the only place you will find it in detail is in the LDS scripture.

It is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of faith. I can point you to what I believe is scripture, but for you, it will only be strange “cultish” things until you gain faith in it.

 

[Arandur]

Any scripture on the great apostasy, will NEVER be found in any Catholic scripture. And since the Bible is a Catholic scripture - you will see hints of it there but not an admission of it occurring. Whatever document there is wouldn’t be on the Catholic Bible. Hence, the only place you will find it in detail is in the LDS scripture.

I believe the Protestant idea of apostasy has a different definition than the Mormon one. Many Protestants don’t believe in a priesthood authority, so their idea of apostasy is just departure from whatever they hold to be true doctrine. How you arrive at unity and truth without authority, relying on personal interpretations, is a problem they’ve never been able to figure out, thus resulting in endless fragmentation into sects that hold variant beliefs.

From what I recall, in his JST version, J Smith forgot to “correct” the Scriptures to make it clear there was a total apostasy. I guess even he didn’t claim the words were there in Scripture. Even if he did, the question would be whether I should place my faith in Joseph Smith or in the Apostles and the Holy Spirit, and all of Jesus’ promises about his Church, the Truth, the Word, etc.

As far as belief in other writings as scripture being a matter of faith, I hope you know that Scripture warns us against fuzzy feelings, “burning in the breast” type things. God gave us the gift of reason to unite with our faith, and He also gave us revelation through natural law, divinely inspired authors, and Tradition guided by the Spirit. In the latter days (the age initiated by Christ through his Incarnation and death and Resurrection, making all things new), we also have the Spirit granted to the Church to preserve it and guide it into all truth. So there are many measures and benchmarks we must use to verify something as truth–and it’s a good thing, because this method of just looking at one or two of these measures has resulted in devolution into disunity and various competing ideas of truth. Essentially, relativism.

When all these things correspond, we can have a surety of truth. When we ignore many indicators of truth in favor of a feeling, we open ourselves to grave error by our own pride, foolishness (our lack of wisdom/inability to understand and judge properly as mortals who are so far beneath God), or manipulation by others (whether man or devil masquerading as angels of light). (Edited)