The Great Apostasy

[seamusmohr]

Tell me does the Anglican Church recite the Nicene Creed with or without the Filioque?

Anglicans ,all of them, as far as I’m aware, recite the Nicene Creed.
We have to remember that the Filioque is an intrusion on the original teaching! It is an addition,which goes against the teaching of Nicea, as do the additions of Trent to the Roman Creed! In my Church or Communion,the Filioque is optional. For my own part I think it should be dropped.

My point is that the **Orthodox Church and Anglicans do not agree on several very important doctrinal issues. ** (Of which I can provide) Can you explain these differences if you are both the one true Church.

I should like you to elucidate on the question of Orthodox / Anglican differences! [Please.]

How would I go about knowing which of you two is correct? Maybe we could hold and ecumenical council, but then again the **Orthodox can’t do that unless Rome is present **which is why they haven’t had one in about a thousand years or so. Do you see my issue here? And there shouldn’t be any issues between your two groups of Church hierarchy because they at least should know that you are the same Church…but that just isn’t so.

The question of holding Ecumenical Councils is interesting! So is your remark [highlighted,] my understanding given me in discussions in the Jerusalem Patriarchy is that Rome is in heresy and would not be eligible to attend. Neither would the Canterbury Communion. Further, there was a discussion on who could call such a Council ,it being the prerogative of the Roman/ Byzantine Greek Emperor!

I should like to stress that Traditional Anglicans do not claim to be the entire One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in its entirety! Simply a manifestation, or showing forth of that body! The Body of Christ here on earth. A Communion of the Faithful. To hold membership one must have been baptised by triune immersion,[usually,] and confirmed by a Bishop. One must hold to the Faith Revealed, entered into scripture and explained as well as confirmed by the Holy Fathers of the Seven Councils. If the above conditions are not held to and one holds the name Christian then reluctantly we believe that they who profess so are simply sectarians! In the case of organisations, a sect is a body who has broken away from the parent body on ,[usually,] a single issue and does not hold the fullness of the faith.

 

[jbelokur]

Anglicans ,all of them, as far as I’m aware, recite the Nicene Creed.
We have to remember that the Filioque is an intrusion on the original teaching! It is an addition,which goes against the teaching of Nicea, as do the additions of Trent to the Roman Creed! In my Church or Communion,the Filioque is optional. For my own part I think it should be dropped.

Firstly, I will answer to the rest of your response in a little while when I have more time. I’m not ignoring it.

Secondly, concerning the above quote, If the Filioque is an intrusion on the original teaching of the Council of Nicea then how could it be optional? Is it also optional in the Orthodox Church?

 

[DV56]

1 Date of Apostasy? The Council of Trent 1545/64!

1. The Faithful Remnant ?The Orthodox Church and the Anglican Continuing] Churches !
   Both Communions mentioned have existed from the Beginning till today!
   ACC, UECNA & P// are the Continuing Church!

I might not be catching on quickly as I should. What is “P//”?

 

[DV56]

Firstly, I will answer to the rest of your response in a little while when I have more time. I’m not ignoring it.

Secondly, concerning the above quote, If the Filioque is an intrusion on the original teaching of the Council of Nicea then how could it be optional? Is it also optional in the Orthodox Church?

As a matter of interest, the Filioque was added to the creed in the west very gradually. It was not until many countries in Europe were using the Filioque by order of their bishop or royalty did tbe Vatican start it’s use. The article is wikipedia is interesting and I believe well written.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

One of the things I’ve read is that the Pope when reciting the Nicene Creed in Greek does in fact leave out the Filioque.

Anyone please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on any of this.

 

[DV56]

I personally believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the parent body. That however (and I did not understand you to be indicating this in anyway) does not take away from other protestant denominations being brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[simspt]

Good evening simspt. These are all great questions. If I may, I’d like to address the questions separately in numbered format just so I can try to get it a bit organized.

Please understand that the intent of my post is not to contradict any other church’s teachings, especially not the Catholic church that is dear to my heart. My sole purpose is just to clarify what the LDS believes. I don’t expect you to agree that it is true or correct principle. But I hope that my answers will make you understand what the LDS is “trying to say” so you can disagree with full knowledge of what exactly it is you are disagreeing with. Do you know what I’m trying to say?

1.) The LDS do not claim that there is no truth in non-LDS churches. The LDS believe that each and every church on the earth (as far as it is a church based on spiritual and natural principles and not man’s self-aggrandizement) has truth to it. What the LDS claim is that the LDS church has the priesthood keys and the complete gospel.

2.) One shouldn’t. Not without a personal testimony/revelation/prompting from the Spirit.

3.) The LDS believes the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. There are several versions of the Bible. All of them with slightly different interpretation. The Catholics, for example, do not believe the KJV is translated correctly. Similarly, the Born Again Christians do not believe the Catholic Bible to be the correct interpretation of the word of God. Several protestant churches use the KJV. But, even then, one church can read the same exact scripture of the same exact Bible and have a completely different interpretation of it than another church.

This is the question that plagued Joseph Smith at age 14 - which church got the Bible right - because he was looking for a church to join in. This was when he claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ manifested themselves to him and guided him to the correct interpretation.

Yeah, when I first heard it, I thought somebody must have had too many poppy seeds or something. But then, I got to thinking, Joseph Smith’s claim is just as valid as any other church out there. If the children of Lourdes claim to have Mother Mary appear to them in the grotto, there’s no reason for Joseph Smith’s claim to have seen God to be dismissed arbitrarily as loco.

The Bible IS the word of God - no question about it. It is a written testimony of the ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles - they all got written with priesthood authority. The only question is what it actually means.

I’m not sure I understand this statement. The LDS church did not get organized until the early 1800’s, so I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say.

Thank you for reading my long posts! I’m trying to make it as brief as I can, but I can’t seem to get all my thoughts contained in under 2 sentences.

I am trying to understand what evidence your Church uses to support the apostasy. If historical succession of Christianity was completely lost at one point and the main doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Catholicism are the result then do you see why i am skeptical. Do I look to the NT and the Early Church Fathers for signs of a total apostasy. Im looking really hard…

 

[choy]

But doesn’t that make the whole idea of a successor ridiculous? Successors take over where you left off, or do what you do while you continue on in this case in the ministry of apostle. But if these successors don’t actually function as apostles, are they then in fact successors?

good question. but the biggest thing i took from post #2 was that because the Apostles were scattered, they were not able to appoint a valid successor. mind you that in Acts 1, they elected, as a group of 11, Mattias to become the 12th Apostle to take the place of Judas. so what i infer by the statement of post #2 is that a number of Apostles must be present to be able to elect a successor. i also believe that the LDS has 12 apostles now they believe to be sitting on the chairs of the original 12. so they must also believe that there can be no more than 12? therefore one must die before he is able to be replaced.

i hope someone shines more light on this, as you and i are just making guesses based on an earlier post

i also hope my other three questions would be answered

a. John was the last surviving, couldn’t he have appointed successors by himself at that time since by his own presence, all surviving Apostles are present?

b. Paul, Mark and Luke were called Apostles at one time or another. Paul clearly wrote this in his epistle. but he wasn’t part of the 12. so what’s the Mormon view about Paul?

c. is there a minimum number of Apostles that need to be present to appoint a successor?

 

[seamusmohr]

Firstly, I will answer to the rest of your response in a little while when I have more time. I’m not ignoring it.

Secondly, concerning the above quote, If the Filioque is an intrusion on the original teaching of the Council of Nicea then how could it be optional? Is it also optional in the Orthodox Church?

 

[seamusmohr]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, it isn’t however one born out by the history of the Church in these Isles. Even the minutes of the Latin Councils of the 14/15th, Cent, gave the Church in England ,precedence on account of antiquity.

 

[jlhargus]

But there is only one remnant.

JL: Those remnants always belonged to **one visible **people of God and always continued in that one visible people of God, even if only a remnant.

 

[NewSeeker]

Hi Pinay,

Thanks for your thoughts on the LDS view of the Great Apostasy (in the interest of full disclosure, I used to be LDS, RM, temple marriage, etc.). The official LDS view seems to depend on several key assumptions on which the view stands or falls (IMO). Each of these claims must be true for LDS claims about a Great Apostasy to hold any water, but items 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 below seem especially critical. I wonder what evidence you have from the ancient sources, and only ancient sources, to support those claims? Let’s stick to the New Testament and the early church fathers since I think Catholics and Mormons would both agree that those are valid historical sources for what Jesus and the apostles did and intended anciently. IMO, we must only use commonly recognized evidences for the conversation or we’ll just end up wasting all of our time. I shouldn’t bring something Pope Benedict says to the table and you shouldn’t bring something Joseph Smith said, correct? Thanks in advance for your reply.

1. There are two priesthoods: Aaronic (lower) and Melchizedek (higher)
2. The two priesthoods administer different orders of ordinances: lesser (e.g., baptism, teaching, administration of the sacrament) and higher (endowment and eternal marriage)
3. Jesus ordained each of the Twelve to the Melchizedek priesthood
4. Apostle is a Melchizedek priesthood office
5. The Twelve were ordained to the office of apostle
6. The keys of the kingdom include the right to govern the entire church
7. The keys of the kingdom include the right to receive revelation for the entire church
8. The keys of the kingdom are only to be given to someone ordained to the office of
   apostle
9. Jesus created a formal, hierarchical church organization with a Prophet/President and Quorum of Twelve

Newseeker

 

[pinay]

I am trying to understand what evidence your Church uses to support the apostasy. If historical succession of Christianity was completely lost at one point and the main doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Catholicism are the result then do you see why i am skeptical. Do I look to the NT and the Early Church Fathers for signs of a total apostasy. Im looking really hard…

Hi simspt! How are you today? If I may, I can direct you to a book that outlines the entire history completely. The concept of the Great Apostasy is something important to the LDS Church. Because, the entire church hinges on this “event”. Basically, if the Great Apostasy never happened, then the Catholic Church is the complete gospel and authority, otherwise, it is possible that the LDS church is the complete gospel and authority… know what I mean?

The one I have read is the book The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage (available on amazon). It is an older book. There are newer and better ones out there but I haven’t read them. One of them is Turning from the Truth: A New Look at the Great Apostasy by Alexander B. Morrison. A lot of people recommended this to me, I just never had the chance to pick it up.

Hope this helps!

 

[choy]

hi pinay,

my earlier question was, what are the requirements by the LDS for valid Apostolic succession? my understanding is that the Great Apostasy happened because the Apostles were not able to appoint valid successors. and also, what is the LDS view of Paul? he is not one of the 12, yet clearly in scripture he referred to himself as an Apostle

thanks!

 

[NewSeeker]

Hi Pinay,
I read the Great Apostasy as a missionary and reviewed it again afterward when seriously looking into LDS claims about the apostasy. It all comes down to the LDS assertion that Jesus ordained the apostles to the Melchizedek priesthood, and that an apostle is an office within that priesthood. Behind the belief that the priesthood was removed is the assumption that it was given. So what’s the evidence that Jesus ordained the apostles to the Melchizedek priesthood and that the apostleship is an office within that priesthood? Talmadge, for one, cites no direct evidence from the ancient sources that Jesus ordained Peter, James, and John and the rest to that priesthood. Rather, he asserts the removal of the priesthood and spends many chapters on the effects (e.g. doctrinal corruption and changes in christian worship), but never once adequately addresses the assumption behind the claim: that Jesus first ordained those men to the higher priesthood. IMO, Mormons like Talmadge read into the NT text LDS assumptions about ordinations about the apostleship and the Melchizedek priesthood, but there is no evidence from ancient sources to support this view. In fact, there’s no evidence that anyone at all, save Jesus, held the Melchizedek priesthood. This, to me, is fatal to the Mormons’ case.

NS

 

[Nicea325]

I was wondering if a protestant who believes in some great apostasy in the Church and the concept of a remnant would mind giving me in your opinion the historical data concerning these things. I would like the supposed date of the great apostasy, and the list of the groups you associate with being the remnant group and if you would give me the name of the group and the dates they existed up to today. Thanks

No such thing! If there was such a thing called the Great Apostasy,then I am curious why not one person who believes it has been able to provide:

1. The name or names or Christians (lay or clegy) writing extensively about this huge event against Christ church and/or
2. The name or names of pagans who bothered to mention it?

 

[pinay]

Hi Pinay,
I read the Great Apostasy as a missionary and reviewed it again afterward when seriously looking into LDS claims about the apostasy. It all comes down to the LDS assertion that Jesus ordained the apostles to the Melchizedek priesthood, and that an apostle is an office within that priesthood. Behind the belief that the priesthood was removed is the assumption that it was given. So what’s the evidence that Jesus ordained the apostles to the Melchizedek priesthood and that the apostleship is an office within that priesthood? Talmadge, for one, cites no direct evidence from the ancient sources that Jesus ordained Peter, James, and John and the rest to that priesthood. Rather, he asserts the removal of the priesthood and spends many chapters on the effects (e.g. doctrinal corruption and changes in christian worship), but never once adequately addresses the assumption behind the claim: that Jesus first ordained those men to the higher priesthood. IMO, Mormons like Talmadge read into the NT text LDS assumptions about ordinations about the apostleship and the Melchizedek priesthood, but there is no evidence from ancient sources to support this view. In fact, there’s no evidence that anyone at all, save Jesus, held the Melchizedek priesthood. This, to me, is fatal to the Mormons’ case.

NS

Hello NewSeeker! Peace. We are on the same kind of journey except mine is backwards from yours. I was a Roman Catholic since birth and now LDS. I have no qualifications of note except that I was a devout Catholic attending Catholic schools from Kindergarten and all through college, LDS for only about 8 years.

I apologize if I don’t address the issues you presented on this post and the one before this. You are a returned missionary therefore, I am very sure you have pondered these same questions, searched the scriptures, discussed it with several Mormons much wiser than me. Therefore, I believe that the only purpose for these posts is to invite debate on the matter.

Unfortunately, I don’t debate in matters of faith. Being an RM, you know that the LDS church hinges on modern revelation, therefore, if I point you to Matthew 16:19 to answer your questions, you will just tell me that Jesus never mentioned the word Melchizedek or Ordination in that chapter, and I will have to answer that modern revelation translates that event as Jesus handing down the prophetic keys through Melchizedek priesthood authority and you will just say that I can’t use modern revelation as a source and so I will have to say then show me where Jesus says the Pope should lead the church and so then it will very easily turn into a messy disparage of each other’s church and I really do not want to do that. It is a bad exercise for 2 people who are sincerely earnest in their desire to find their way back to Heavenly Father’s kingdom.

My journey is unique and personal to me. Your journey is unique and personal to you. We are both led by the same Spirit even if we are seemingly headed in opposite directions. For this, God must have a purpose, and I’m sure a part of it is to see if we remain Christians in the face of opposition. Okay, okay, so some people say Mormons aren’t Christians, but I digress…

I love the Roman Catholic Church. If you haven’t found it yet, you might want to check it out.

 

[pinay]

hi pinay,

my earlier question was, what are the requirements by the LDS for valid Apostolic succession? my understanding is that the Great Apostasy happened because the Apostles were not able to appoint valid successors. and also, what is the LDS view of Paul? he is not one of the 12, yet clearly in scripture he referred to himself as an Apostle

thanks!

Hi choy! Nice to meet you.

I’m not sure if we use the term Apostle the same way. I know the word is not used in the Roman Catholic Church except in reference to the Apostles during Jesus’ ministry.

In LDS doctrine, an Apostle is a special witness of Jesus Christ. Although only 12 Apostles at a time run the administrative council of the church, there may be other Apostles that are given the authority to act as a special witness of Jesus Christ who receive revelation for the entire church.

In the New Testament for example, we have the 12 Apostles (with Matthias replacing Judas). Then we have Paul, Barnabas, and James who are also Apostles but do not perform administrative functions. Their ministry is dedicated to spreading the Word of God to all nations.

In the LDS church organization, we have 12 Apostles, then we have the Presidency (the Prophet and his 2 councilors) - so we have 15 Apostles in all. These 15 people have the authority to receive revelation that is applicable to the entire church.

Okay, as far as how they become Apostles - first of all, Jesus Christ selects the Apostles then the authority is handed down by ordination by an Apostle.

There was a mention here of Matthias and how he was not ordained but was chosen by “casting of lots”. I can’t remember off the top of my head the scripture that mentions it but if you look back to that particular scripture it says that the name was given to the disciples and they casted lots. The LDS church believes that an Apostle (or any position in the church, actually) is chosen by personal revelation. When a vacancy occurs in the quorum of 12 apostles, the apostles pray about it and come up with a name. It is then presented to the entire church for sustaining. If the entire church sustains the person to the position, then he is ordained as an apostle. So, the sustaining process is what the NT called “casting of lots”.

Hope this answers your questions.

 

[choy]

Hi choy! Nice to meet you.

I’m not sure if we use the term Apostle the same way. I know the word is not used in the Roman Catholic Church except in reference to the Apostles during Jesus’ ministry.

In LDS doctrine, an Apostle is a special witness of Jesus Christ. Although only 12 Apostles at a time run the administrative council of the church, there may be other Apostles that are given the authority to act as a special witness of Jesus Christ who receive revelation for the entire church.

In the New Testament for example, we have the 12 Apostles (with Matthias replacing Judas). Then we have Paul, Barnabas, and James who are also Apostles but do not perform administrative functions. Their ministry is dedicated to spreading the Word of God to all nations.

In the LDS church organization, we have 12 Apostles, then we have the Presidency (the Prophet and his 2 councilors) - so we have 15 Apostles in all. These 15 people have the authority to receive revelation that is applicable to the entire church.

Okay, as far as how they become Apostles - first of all, Jesus Christ selects the Apostles then the authority is handed down by ordination by an Apostle.

There was a mention here of Matthias and how he was not ordained but was chosen by “casting of lots”. I can’t remember off the top of my head the scripture that mentions it but if you look back to that particular scripture it says that the name was given to the disciples and they casted lots. The LDS church believes that an Apostle (or any position in the church, actually) is chosen by personal revelation. When a vacancy occurs in the quorum of 12 apostles, the apostles pray about it and come up with a name. It is then presented to the entire church for sustaining. If the entire church sustains the person to the position, then he is ordained as an apostle. So, the sustaining process is what the NT called “casting of lots”.

Hope this answers your questions.

if Paul does not have any administrative functions, how come he gives directions to most of the Eastern Churches? in fact, he wrote the instructions on how to be a Christian (what to do, what not to do, etc.)

as for Mattias, he was ordained. if you read the entirety of Acts 1, you’ll see that the casting of the lots did not make him an Apostle. the laying of hands by the other Apostles did

 

[seamusmohr]

No such thing! If there was such a thing called the Great Apostasy,then I am curious why not one person who believes it has been able to provide:

1. The name or names or Christians (lay or clegy) writing extensively about this huge event against Christ church

I don’t know about extensively, but definitely written!

At the time of the reformation Traditional Catholics and the members of the ‘New Church of Trent,’ used to confront one another with the former asking the latter,Where was your Church before Trent? Bishop Hickes. Question to Rome! [1713!]

It was thought that the usurpation of authority by the Bishop of Rome had placed him along side Anti-Christ! Therefore Romans were not considered Catholics! It was the Anglican Catholic Bishops, Laud, Bramhall, Taylor, Hicks the Primus, as well as our own Scots Bishops Campbell and Gadderar who stated positively
that whilst Rome was in great error they had not abandoned their Catholic heritage!

Read John Evelyn’s Diary for 1686, Jan. For use of the term New Church of Trent!

Modern Authors!
Also Boulbee’s 39 Articles.

CB Moss . The Christian faith. Ch,7. pg 468.

Bishop Chartres. Faith & Worship no,56.Pg11.

Also McCulloch mentions it in his book about the Reformation!

 

[Jon_Hus]

JL: Those remnants always belonged to **one visible **people of God and always continued in that one visible people of God, even if only a remnant.

OK fair enough. Two questions:

1. Can jlhargus prove this?
2. Is it a Biblical statement?