The Great Apostasy

[NewSeeker]

Hi Pinay,

I hope you are having a wonderful day. Thanks for your comments. I love that you and I are on the same road heading in opposite directions, waving as we go past. I was raised LDS in Utah and other western states, a fifth generation Mormon on both sides of the family. You’re absolutely correct: the predicted direction of our conversation would follow the course you laid out in your post. I appreciate your desire to not engage in debate; each person’s faith journey is unique. If you’ll permit me, I’d like to address your point that LDS beliefs about the Apostasy are based on modern revelation. This point is, of course, true. But it does raise an important question. Whether you accept that modern revelation as valid depends (IMO) ultimately on the acquisition of a personal testimony. That means beliefs in modern revelation are rooted in subjective experiences, as with all experiences of the divine. But claims about the Apostasy are historical in nature. It was either a historical event that really occurred (in which case it is in principle able to be documented) or it was not. It seems that when Mormons (a la Talmadge) discuss the Apostasy they begin by bringing historical evidence to the table (e.g. scriptural proof texts, evidence on the bad behavior of Catholic leaders, supposed parallels between Catholic and ancient pagan rituals etc.). Then after a conversation ensues, they perform a bait and switch and pull their testimony and modern revelation out of their pockets. In the end, this is a deal killer since testimony and faith in modern revelation is not subject to historical scrutiny. It effectively ends conversation. It can also be used to make any historical claims, since modern revelation is rooted in what someone personally believes in their heart. It cannot be contravened by any appeal to the empirical record. So what’s the point of bringing up historical evidence at all? When push comes to shove, the testimony card is inevitably played since the bare evidence from the first and second centuries does not support claims about an Apostasy. It seems to me that Mormons mention the ancient evidence primarily to give their revelation-based claims a degree of academic respectability. How else can they warrant sitting at the table with folks who ONLY refer to the evidence to determine what happened anciently? Just a thought.

NS

 

[pinay]

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”.

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

Hi Choy. How are you today?

Giving direction is not what I mean by administrative functions. Giving direction is the “job” of an Apostle - his main job actually - and he is tasked with spreading the word to all who would hear it. What I mean by administrative function is in overseeing and presiding over the activities of the church. For example, construction of church buildings, organizing conferences, sending out the disciples to different corners of the world, establishment of stakes, conducting investigations of church affairs, etc. etc. etc.

As for Matthias yes, that’s what I was trying to tell you. That he was ordained after they cast lots - which is exactly what the LDS church does - they ordain a new apostle after the apostle is sustained. Okay, that word “sustained” might be confusing - what that means is that the entire church is asked if they have any objections to the person being selected as the next apostle - so all LDS members raise their hand to “sustain” him (that is, no objections) or, if one member has an objection, they discuss the objection and it could possibly cause the ordination rite to not happen. This has not happened yet in the history of the church that I know of - that somebody objected to the selection of an apostle causing the ordination rite to not happen.

 

[pinay]

Hi Pinay,

I hope you are having a wonderful day. Thanks for your comments. I love that you and I are on the same road heading in opposite directions, waving as we go past. I was raised LDS in Utah and other western states, a fifth generation Mormon on both sides of the family. You’re absolutely correct: the predicted direction of our conversation would follow the course you laid out in your post. I appreciate your desire to not engage in debate; each person’s faith journey is unique. If you’ll permit me, I’d like to address your point that LDS beliefs about the Apostasy are based on modern revelation. This point is, of course, true. But it does raise an important question. Whether you accept that modern revelation as valid depends (IMO) ultimately on the acquisition of a personal testimony. That means beliefs in modern revelation are rooted in subjective experiences, as with all experiences of the divine. But claims about the Apostasy are historical in nature. It was either a historical event that really occurred (in which case it is in principle able to be documented) or it was not. It seems that when Mormons (a la Talmadge) discuss the Apostasy they begin by bringing historical evidence to the table (e.g. scriptural proof texts, evidence on the bad behavior of Catholic leaders, supposed parallels between Catholic and ancient pagan rituals etc.). Then after a conversation ensues, they perform a bait and switch and pull their testimony and modern revelation out of their pockets. In the end, this is a deal killer since testimony and faith in modern revelation is not subject to historical scrutiny. It effectively ends conversation. It can also be used to make any historical claims, since modern revelation is rooted in what someone personally believes in their heart. It cannot be contravened by any appeal to the empirical record. So what’s the point of bringing up historical evidence at all? When push comes to shove, the testimony card is inevitably played since the bare evidence from the first and second centuries does not support claims about an Apostasy. It seems to me that Mormons mention the ancient evidence primarily to give their revelation-based claims a degree of academic respectability. How else can they warrant sitting at the table with folks who ONLY refer to the evidence to determine what happened anciently? Just a thought.

NS

Hello NS. It’s a great day in Florida again. Yes, we are headed the opposite direction but I think we share quite a big chunk of the road before we completely veer off out of sight. That’s a cool thing.

I completely understand your point. Yes, sometimes, the LDS members use the “it’s personal revelation” stuff a bit much to fend off scrutiny. I do it too. In my case though, it is not that I haven’t studied it and just avoided exploring the matter further, it is completely that after all my studies, getting all sides of the story from all different directions, the only way I can avoid confusion is to sit down and ponder. That a-ha moment I attribute to the Holy Ghost but that’s not something I can tell you as a fact, because, for all intents and purposes, it could be just an overload of poppy-seeds, no one can tell. Somebody else will have to go through it on their own and see if they get the same a-ha moment - a lot of times - like in your case, your a-ha moment led you the opposite direction. Completely alright. It is the sincerity of the pondering which is important, after all.

About the historical perspective - the LDS church is the only church in my opinion that hinges on the Apostasy happening (has to be completely dead before a restoration would make any sense). So, of course, you will not find any text in the bible that will give you a definite historical claim that the apostasy happened - that would make all churches invalid - because, they’re not stupid. I don’t believe one bit that all of these churches we have now are formed by men hiding evidence of events that would render them invalid (yeah, I think Dan Brown has way too much imagination). If they find historical evidence that the apostasy happened, they will not continue claiming they have apostolic succession.

What you’re asking for is similar to the analogy (okay, I use analogies way too much) of skeptics asking Galileo to prove that the world is round by using only ancient texts… Fortunately for Galileo, the proof to his claim is physical evidence, so it is easy to junk ancient texts and replace it with new science. Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, nothing can prove his claim except for when we all die and see for ourselves. Because none of the scriptures - old or new - can prove it. We can read the same exact line of the same exact Bible and have completely different conclusions - none of us can prove which one is right. Hah, none of us can prove God exists or Adam and Eve or Noah and the flood or Moses’ travel to the promised land or Jesus being the Son of God… there’s something to being an agnostic…

So, for me, it is an easy dilemma. Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God? If yes, then Joseph Smith is a prophet. If that’s true, then the Apostasy happened. That’s it. Easy. Of course, coming up with a yes answer to these chicken-or-the-egg questions is a very tough road to traverse for a Roman Catholic. It is just shy of a miracle to see it the LDS way.

 

[simspt]

Hello NS. It’s a great day in Florida again. Yes, we are headed the opposite direction but I think we share quite a big chunk of the road before we completely veer off out of sight. That’s a cool thing.

I completely understand your point. Yes, sometimes, the LDS members use the “it’s personal revelation” stuff a bit much to fend off scrutiny. I do it too. In my case though, it is not that I haven’t studied it and just avoided exploring the matter further, it is completely that after all my studies, getting all sides of the story from all different directions, the only way I can avoid confusion is to sit down and ponder. That a-ha moment I attribute to the Holy Ghost but that’s not something I can tell you as a fact, because, for all intents and purposes, it could be just an overload of poppy-seeds, no one can tell. Somebody else will have to go through it on their own and see if they get the same a-ha moment - a lot of times - like in your case, your a-ha moment led you the opposite direction. Completely alright. It is the sincerity of the pondering which is important, after all.

About the historical perspective - the LDS church is the only church in my opinion that hinges on the Apostasy happening (has to be completely dead before a restoration would make any sense). So, of course, you will not find any text in the bible that will give you a definite historical claim that the apostasy happened - that would make all churches invalid - because, they’re not stupid. I don’t believe one bit that all of these churches we have now are formed by men hiding evidence of events that would render them invalid (yeah, I think Dan Brown has way too much imagination). If they find historical evidence that the apostasy happened, they will not continue claiming they have apostolic succession.

What you’re asking for is similar to the analogy (okay, I use analogies way too much) of skeptics asking Galileo to prove that the world is round by using only ancient texts… Fortunately for Galileo, the proof to his claim is physical evidence, so it is easy to junk ancient texts and replace it with new science. Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, nothing can prove his claim except for when we all die and see for ourselves. Because none of the scriptures - old or new - can prove it. We can read the same exact line of the same exact Bible and have completely different conclusions - none of us can prove which one is right. Hah, none of us can prove God exists or Adam and Eve or Noah and the flood or Moses’ travel to the promised land or Jesus being the Son of God… there’s something to being an agnostic…

So, for me, it is an easy dilemma. Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God? If yes, then Joseph Smith is a prophet. If that’s true, then the Apostasy happened. That’s it. Easy. Of course, coming up with a yes answer to these chicken-or-the-egg questions is a very tough road to traverse for a Roman Catholic. It is just shy of a miracle to see it the LDS way.

I agree with you about the validity of Mormon teaching resting on the apostasy. Why should I believe it happened then? What I see among the historical Christian literature is a central “rule of faith” being taught and defended against. These late 1st century and 2nd century teachings seem to jive with the earlier NT teachings in their core. There also seems to be this desire to attribute these writings to authoritative figures. Oral tradition also seem to be held in high esteem (eg Papias). The Gnostics did not hold to this “rule of faith” and were accused of misinterpreting the written gospels and pauls letters by these other Christians who appealed to historical succession. Do you expect someone to accept the Mormon claims of Joseph Smith without providing solid historical evidence. Im not interested in someone proving his claims but at least giving some plausable explanations.

 

[NewSeeker]

Hi Pinay,

I tend to over-analogize myself. Let me use one of yours and run with it a bit. You said I was being like a skeptic requiring those who believed the earth is round to use only ancient texts, and not Galileo’s telescope. I think the analogy is a bit imprecise. To make it more truly analogous, Galileo needs to have claimed an angel gave him his telescope and then took it back once Galileo wrote down his evidences that show the earth is round. Galileo would then invite us to pray about this writings and ask God if they’re true. We can’t peer through the telescope ourselves since the angel took back. Applying this to myself, I followed Galileo’s advice, reviewed his evidence, and prayed. I did not receive the expected answer. I’m convinced he made the whole thing up. All I have left is the ancient writings if I want to be a Christian and those writings point me to the ancient traditions. But as the previous poster suggested, the body of ancient writings is the only evidence that is convincing to someone who is not already a Mormon. So unless a Mormon is willing to check his testimony at the door (which is impossible to do if you are a believing Mormon), discussions about the Apostasy are really a waste of time and just lead to debate and hard feelings. Barring the discovery of some new smoking gun manuscript from John or another apostle that documents the apostles’ ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood (and ordinances such as temple marriage and the endowment), I must go with the story the available evidence tells about what happened between the mid-first to mid-second centuries and that story is indisputably Catholic in my view. Your investigation of Joseph Smith’s claims and mine led to different conclusions, but the proofs behind those conclusions are purely subjective – within each of us and our respective experiences are opaque and inaccessible to the other. Since that’s true, charity requires that I respect your innermost beliefs and what you hold dear in your heart. So, have a great day and may God be with you!

NS

 

[Nicea325]

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!

Wow! Absolutely amazing! Christ Church fell into APOSTASY and you mean NO ONE bothered to write about it EXTENSIVELY? Wow! The church wrote EXTENSIVELY against many heresies,but clearly did not write EXTENSIVELY about the BIGGEST event against Christ Church?

Now please provide me one church father or pagan who wrote extensively on such a HUUUUUUUUGGGEEEE EVENT against Christ Church?

The above info you provided does not support the Great Apostasy.

 

[seamusmohr]

Wow! Absolutely amazing! Christ Church fell into APOSTASY and you mean NO ONE bothered to write about it EXTENSIVELY? Wow! The church wrote EXTENSIVELY against many heresies,but clearly did not write EXTENSIVELY about the BIGGEST event against Christ Church?

Now please provide me one church father or pagan who wrote extensively on such a HUUUUUUUUGGGEEEE EVENT against Christ Church?

The above info you provided does not support the Great Apostasy.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6579571:

Wow! Absolutely amazing! Christ Church fell into APOSTASY and you mean NO ONE bothered to write about it EXTENSIVELY? Wow! The church wrote EXTENSIVELY against many heresies,but clearly did not write EXTENSIVELY about the BIGGEST event against Christ Church?

Now please provide me one church father or pagan who wrote extensively on such a HUUUUUUUUGGGEEEE EVENT against Christ Church?

don’t get too over the top friend, I told you, had it not been for the Anglican Bishops you would have been in deep mire! As it is, Trent turned Rome in to a Catholc Sect!

The Anglican bishops? Deep mire? Sorry,but I do not accept your misunderstandings of church history.Now back to the topic,when you can provide something with substance about the so-called Great Apostasy,let me know,until then I do not care to hear or read the same stuff I have heard my entire life.

 

[Nicea325]

When did I attack the Anglican Church? I am making a challenge to him regarding the Great Apostasy and he has not provided a zilch of historical evidence other than his perversions of Trent.
[/quote]

 

[Nicea325]

No apology needed. I simply find it amazing how something so massive against Christ Church and church history can go unwritten extensively. His Trent line is bogus. Trent is also in response to the Reformation better known as the Counter-Reformation.
[/quote]

 

[lax16]

I
About the historical perspective - the LDS church is the only church in my opinion that hinges on the Apostasy happening (has to be completely dead before a restoration would make any sense). So, of course, you will not find any text in the bible that will give you a definite historical claim that the apostasy happened - that would make all churches invalid - because, they’re not stupid. I don’t believe one bit that all of these churches we have now are formed by men hiding evidence of events that would render them invalid (yeah, I think Dan Brown has way too much imagination). If they find historical evidence that the apostasy happened, they will not continue claiming they have apostolic succession.

What you’re asking for is similar to the analogy (okay, I use analogies way too much) of skeptics asking Galileo to prove that the world is round by using only ancient texts… Fortunately for Galileo, the proof to his claim is physical evidence, so it is easy to junk ancient texts and replace it with new science. Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, nothing can prove his claim except for when we all die and see for ourselves. Because none of the scriptures - old or new - can prove it. We can read the same exact line of the same exact Bible and have completely different conclusions - none of us can prove which one is right. Hah, none of us can prove God exists or Adam and Eve or Noah and the flood or Moses’ travel to the promised land or Jesus being the Son of God… there’s something to being an agnostic…

So, for me, it is an easy dilemma. Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God? If yes, then Joseph Smith is a prophet. If that’s true, then the Apostasy happened. That’s it. Easy. Of course, coming up with a yes answer to these chicken-or-the-egg questions is a very tough road to traverse for a Roman Catholic. It is just shy of a miracle to see it the LDS way.

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…

 

[Nicea325]

Nothing can be further than the truth. The Anglican Church is NOT the original church and NO early church historian would ever even make such an absurd claim. All one has to do is read Cardinal Newman works an ex-Anglican.
[/quote]

 

[choy]

Hi Choy. How are you today?

Giving direction is not what I mean by administrative functions. Giving direction is the “job” of an Apostle - his main job actually - and he is tasked with spreading the word to all who would hear it. What I mean by administrative function is in overseeing and presiding over the activities of the church. For example, construction of church buildings, organizing conferences, sending out the disciples to different corners of the world, establishment of stakes, conducting investigations of church affairs, etc. etc. etc.

As for Matthias yes, that’s what I was trying to tell you. That he was ordained after they cast lots - which is exactly what the LDS church does - they ordain a new apostle after the apostle is sustained. Okay, that word “sustained” might be confusing - what that means is that the entire church is asked if they have any objections to the person being selected as the next apostle - so all LDS members raise their hand to “sustain” him (that is, no objections) or, if one member has an objection, they discuss the objection and it could possibly cause the ordination rite to not happen. This has not happened yet in the history of the church that I know of - that somebody objected to the selection of an apostle causing the ordination rite to not happen.

why does the entire church need to be involved? the lots for Mattias were cast by the Apostles. in the Catholic Church, bishops are ordained by a group of other bishops, and this also has to be with the Pope’s approval. and remember that in the Catholic Church, the bishops are the Apostolic successors. so for one to become bishop, other bishops must elevate him into the episcopacy, the same way the Apostles elevated Mattias into an Apostle

don’t you think this is valid? and this has been going on since the 1st century. our bishops today were ordained by other bishops who were ordained by other bishops and this goes back all the way to the original 12 Apostles. of course its a matter of accepting that or not whether you would believe in the Great Apostasy. why do the LDS would think the succession of bishops is not a valid Apostolic succession?

 

[simspt]

Hello NS. It’s a great day in Florida again. Yes, we are headed the opposite direction but I think we share quite a big chunk of the road before we completely veer off out of sight. That’s a cool thing.

I completely understand your point. Yes, sometimes, the LDS members use the “it’s personal revelation” stuff a bit much to fend off scrutiny. I do it too. In my case though, it is not that I haven’t studied it and just avoided exploring the matter further, it is completely that after all my studies, getting all sides of the story from all different directions, the only way I can avoid confusion is to sit down and ponder. That a-ha moment I attribute to the Holy Ghost but that’s not something I can tell you as a fact, because, for all intents and purposes, it could be just an overload of poppy-seeds, no one can tell. Somebody else will have to go through it on their own and see if they get the same a-ha moment - a lot of times - like in your case, your a-ha moment led you the opposite direction. Completely alright. It is the sincerity of the pondering which is important, after all.

About the historical perspective - the LDS church is the only church in my opinion that hinges on the Apostasy happening (has to be completely dead before a restoration would make any sense). So, of course, you will not find any text in the bible that will give you a definite historical claim that the apostasy happened - that would make all churches invalid - because, they’re not stupid. I don’t believe one bit that all of these churches we have now are formed by men hiding evidence of events that would render them invalid (yeah, I think Dan Brown has way too much imagination). If they find historical evidence that the apostasy happened, they will not continue claiming they have apostolic succession.

What you’re asking for is similar to the analogy (okay, I use analogies way too much) of skeptics asking Galileo to prove that the world is round by using only ancient texts… Fortunately for Galileo, the proof to his claim is physical evidence, so it is easy to junk ancient texts and replace it with new science. Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, nothing can prove his claim except for when we all die and see for ourselves. Because none of the scriptures - old or new - can prove it. We can read the same exact line of the same exact Bible and have completely different conclusions - none of us can prove which one is right. Hah, none of us can prove God exists or Adam and Eve or Noah and the flood or Moses’ travel to the promised land or Jesus being the Son of God… there’s something to being an agnostic…

So, for me, it is an easy dilemma. Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God? If yes, then Joseph Smith is a prophet. If that’s true, then the Apostasy happened. That’s it. Easy. Of course, coming up with a yes answer to these chicken-or-the-egg questions is a very tough road to traverse for a Roman Catholic. It is just shy of a miracle to see it the LDS way.

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian vigorously argued against heresy put forth by other self-proclaimed followers of Christ in the late 2nd century. Both clearly realized that the NT writings alone were not sufficient for refuting the Gnostics because they could appeal to the NT writings just as easily. The norm they (Irenaeus and Tertullian) used seems to have been the rule of faith or tradition of the Church that was historically handed down. That was the norm or standard for interpreting the writings of the Evangelists and St. Paul. That standard was important by the end of the 2nd century but began much earlier. Normative Christian confessions are seen in Pauls writings Phil 2:10-11, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3 JESUS IS LORD. The norm of tradition or rule of faith was used by early Christians as a guide to authentic interpretation of Scripture and that tradition guided the formation of the NT canon. IF these Christians were apostates and belonged to an apostate church then why should I put my faith in the NT canon. How do we know Paul and the Evangelists werent also way off on their understanding of Jesus writing their Gospels and letters decades after the ministry of Jesus. IF Some truth was preserved then how do we know what it was. To my understanding of the Mormon concept of Apostasy and I fully admit I might not be understanding it but if its true then why should anyone trust the Gospels since they were the tradition of this corrupt Church. Since the NT Canon was decided on by the Catholic Church why should we believe we have any type of accurate info. This is a supposedly very apostate Church by the 4th century. On top of this we are to accept that God wasnt able to protect the early church with his revelation but decided to 1800 years later with the Mormon Church. If the apostolic Fathers and ECFs were mistaken then how do you know your not as well? :

 

[seamusmohr]

(name removed by moderator);6580218:

Nothing can be further than the truth. The Anglican Church is NOT the original church and NO early church historian would ever even make such an absurd claim. All one has to do is read Cardinal Newman works an ex-Anglican.

Again and again, you distort my words, when did I ever ,to quote your own words," make such an absurd claim?" To yourself or anyone else? You are careless with words. What I said is that the Anglican Church is a MANIFESTATION, a showing forth of the Body of Christ! It is not the original Church, but it is, as far as I can see ,of the original church!
Certainly the Roman Church had its origin around the same time, but the origin of the Roman was in the Particular Church built around what in antiquity was named the ,‘Suburbicarian Church’! That is that part of the Catholic Church around the central and southern belt of Italy with the islands around that Country! It acheived its present promise with a takeover at the Council of Trent!

Read Littledale’s Works.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6580332:

Again and again, you distort my words, when did I ever ,to quote your own words," make such an absurd claim?" To yourself or anyone else? You are careless with words. What I said is that the Anglican Church is a MANIFESTATION, a showing forth of the Body of Christ! It is not the original Church, but it is, as far as I can see ,of the original church!
Certainly the Roman Church had its origin around the same time, but the origin of the Roman was in the Particular Church built around what in antiquity was named the ,‘Suburbicarian Church’! That is that part of the Catholic Church around the central and southern belt of Italy with the islands around that Country! It acheived its present promise with a takeover at the Council of Trent!

Read Littledale’s Works.

I do not think so! You seem to be the one distorting the words of the early church fathers. You are the one who said ALL the early church fathers,including Cyprian and Augustine REJECTED Roman claims. That is a blatant distortion of history.

 

[Arandur]

Titus 1:2 God never lies
Mathew 16:18 “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”

The Church never fell into apostacy. There is a historical unbroken line from todays Catholic Bishops back to the apostles and from Pope Benedict to Peter. God is not a liar. As the word of God says “to him be glory **in the church **and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever” Eph 3:21

Nice references

estesbob:

It also pre-supposes a pretty inept god-a god who sends his only begotten son to suffer great pain and die for our sins and after a 100 years his Church is gone only be to re-dicsovered some 1,500 to 2010 years later(a i am sure there are new denominations being created as speak). Basically if you unlucky enough to live in the 1500 plus years unitl god found someone who got it you were toast.

Add to this that the concept of a Great Apostasy, if it is believed to be total, makes Jesus into the fool of his own parables. He is the foolish man who does not count the cost before building his tower. He is the fool who builds on shifting sand, not preparing for the storms. He does not protect his own house. He, the carpenter, who says HE will build HIS Church, does a pretty poor job of it. He lies when he say’s he’ll be with us. He does not purify his Bride the Church, but instead divorces her and marries another (another Church later). He allows his own Body, his physical presence on earth, to die. He lets his own deep, sincere prayer that we all be one go unfulfilled. The Spirit he sends does not guide anything into all truth. Those he sends in his name who must be received now must no longer be received, for he has cut them all off. His Word comes back to him fruitless. The Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of truth spoken of in the Scriptures. For the first time in history, though he even preserved Noah to keep faith with his people, after his triumphant resurrection he for this first time actually lets the line of true faithful die out. He is a fraud, a liar, a fool, an adulterer by his own words, dead on earth, an oathbreaker, a failure, not victorious, but defeated.

To claim that there was a “total” apostasy (as I assume the term “Great Apostasy” means, since I here it most commonly from the Smithian perspective that claims a total apostasy) is to blaspheme in every way against Christ himself.

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6582986:

I do not think so! You seem to be the one distorting the words of the early church fathers. You are the one who said ALL

the early church fathers,including Cyprian and Augustine REJECTED Roman claims. That is a blatant distortion of history.

Which they, Cyprian and Augustine, did, I have written it down quite clearly for you and published a series of highly reputable sources from classical scholars! S,Cyprian held to the traditional idea of the unity of the Episcopal College ,S. Augustine supported the principal of papal rejection at the Council of Carthage at least once and possibly both the ones I mentioned! Whilst I have not canvassed the writings of ,‘ALL’ the early fathers, there doesn’t seem to be any support in the first three or four centuries in support of papal claims. In fact many of the great fathers of the early Centuries reject the idea that Peter was the Rock! That definitely included S.Augustine if we read his retractions!
Please read, don’t pick odd faults see the wide scene. Don’t snatch at straws, neither is there a need to distort the picture it is clear!

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6584309:

seamusmohr;6582986:

Which they, Cyprian and Augustine, did, I have written it down quite clearly for you and published a series of highly reputable sources from classical scholars! S,Cyprian held to the traditional idea of the unity of the Episcopal College ,S. Augustine supported the principal of papal rejection at the Council of Carthage at least once and possibly both the ones I mentioned! Whilst I have not canvassed the writings of ,‘ALL’ the early fathers, there doesn’t seem to be any support in the first three or four centuries in support of papal claims. In fact many of the great fathers of the early Centuries reject the idea that Peter was the Rock! That definitely included S.Augustine if we read his retractions!
Please read, don’t pick odd faults see the wide scene. Don’t snatch at straws, neither is there a need to distort the picture it is clear!

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.

I 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.

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?

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.

 

[agent_grey]

The remnant… Those that believe in the real presence and absolutely refuse symbolic communion.

The date… I won’t get into that as it serves no purpose.

All I will say is if you recieve communion and do not experience the supernatural real presence of Christ don’t go back.