The Great Apostasy

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

The twelve apostles are at the foundation of the Catholic Church … the church is “built upon” (Eph 2:20) on the apostles.

The Twelve Apostles were the “foundation” of the church in the days of Paul; but were are they now? Perhaps I need a magnifying glass to find them, because for sure I can’t see them—except in the LDS Church.

amgid

 

[majick275]

nope, the apostles are in heaven serving God. You don’t see the levitical priesthood carrying out carnal ordinances anymore. you don’t find the ark of the covenant either. That’s because these have served God’s purpose. We have what the Bible tells us (and sacred tradition confirms) the Apostles established in God’s name. The church that Jesus founded and the Apostles spread is still teaching what those apostles taught and performing the same sacraments they did.

On the other hand we only have JS word for it on the “great apostasy”. how much credibility can we put in a man who lied so blatantly to his church as he did in this address:

angelfire.com/az2/arizonadry/truth/may1844sermon.html

If we compare JS in that address he gave (knowing what history has proven about him at that time period) with 2 Peter we see a false teacher with only his own Apostasy. That LDS today still follow him could be considered a great tragedy but even then no “great apostasy”. (a universal removal of all authority due to universaly taught false doctrine)

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

I don’t dispute that Peter held the presidency over the Twelve, and hence over the Church. What I dispute is your contention that just because Peter was at the head, the rest of the Twelve was (and is) no longer necessary. That is like saying that just because we have the President of the United States, the rest of the cabinet, the Whitehouse, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are not necessary. Peter was ONE of the Twelve. If you do away with the Twelve, you also do away with Peter. Where are the Twelve Apostles in the Catholic Church today?

Peter was one of the twelve, but he was more than that. I don’t think the LDS church even denies that.

They also “fell silent” when Paul and Barnabas spoke, and also when James spoke.

Incorrect. They fell silent after Peter spoke. Then the others joined in to support what Peter just said. Peter is always the first one to act, to lead, and to demonstrate.

That sounds like a forced argument to me. James was an Apostle. He was not the bishop of Jerusalem.

No, James was an Apostle and the bishop of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was his region. He led the church there just like a Catholic bishop leads a diocese.

That is where you have made your biggest mistake. The “dispute” was not “between the Apostles”. The Apostles were pretty much agreed over the issue. They had enough inspiration and revelation of the Holy Ghost to know for themselves what the correct position was. The dispute was between them and some Jewish converts who believed (sincerely) that the Gentile needed to be circumcised.

You don’t really know this. What we are told is that there was much debate over the issue. We cannot assume that all the Apostles felt the same way from the beginning, and that it was only others who disagreed. What we do know is that once Peter spoke, all fell silent. Why do you think this was included in the scripture?–To demonstrate Peter’s primacy, which is demonstrated many other times in scripture as well.

I actually think we are in agreement that Peter was prime among the Apostles. Where we disagree is that you believe the organization of twelve Apostles was itself a fixed institution that should have continued.Scripture, however, does not support this position, nor does early church history. Christ chose twelve as a fulfillment of the Old Testament twelve tribes of Israel. He never said that this specific institution would continue in its original number as the church would grow. Apostles were special because they either new Christ personally during his earthly ministry or, in the case of Paul, had a dramatic visit by Christ himself. Apostolic authority, however, did continue through the office of bishop. This is supported both by scripture and early church history. Ancient bishops had to demonstrate a pedigree of ordination leading directly back to one of the original twelve. Every Catholic bishop today can do the same. In fact, to deomonstrate a great apostacy, you would have to show where a break took place in such ordinations.

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

The Catholic Church does not deny the “power”. The Church has the Living Mageristrium which receives divine revelation like the Trinity (see teaching below).

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them (CCC88).

2Tim 3:5 reveals that that some, like the Mormon Church, will deny the power … again this verse does to fit the Catholic Church.

The twelve apostles are still part of today’s Catholic Church, they are the foundation on which the Catholic Church is built upon. They are part of the whole family in heaven and earth is named (Eph 3:14,15).

The Mormon “Great Apostasy” is simply a “Great Fantasy” …

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Peter was one of the twelve, but he was more than that. I don’t think the LDS church even denies that.

He was not much more than that. According to LDS theology, Peter was one of the Twelve, and the presiding officer over the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In the LDS Church, every office of the priesthood has a quorum, and every quorum has its own president, who is a member of that quorum, starting from the First Presidency down to the deacons. In the LDS Church today, President Thomas S. Monson, a member of the First Presidency, is the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. But because he is also called to serve as the first counselor in the First Presidency, elder Boyd K. Packer is called to serve as the acting President of the Twelve. By tradition in the LDS Church, the president of the Twelve Apostles is always the senior Apostle, meaning that he is the one who has been in the quorum for the longest period of time. The office of the President of the Twelve Apostles is indeed an important one. When the President of the Church dies, the First Presidency is dissolved, and the Twelve Apostles then automatically become the governing body of the Church (D&C 107:23-24); and the President of the Twelve, by virtue of his position then becomes the effective President of the Church. He is the president of the Church in waiting, and, by tradition, he has always been ordained to that position when a President of the Church dies. But his calling is not that much different from that of any other Apostle. He is just the senior Apostle who presides over the rest of the Quorum. He doesn’t have anything else, priesthood or otherwise, that the rest of the Twelve do not.

Incorrect. They fell silent after Peter spoke. Then the others joined in to support what Peter just said. Peter is always the first one to act, to lead, and to demonstrate.

I think that you are now splitting hairs, and trying to artificially blow this thing out of all proportion. That is silly. The council gave as much deference to the rest of the Twelve as they spoke, as they gave to Peter. In fact, if you read it carefully enough, it doesn’t say that they became silent for Peter to speak. It says they became silent for Paul and Barnabas to speak.

No, James was an Apostle and the bishop of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was his region. He led the church there just like a Catholic bishop leads a diocese.

You are mistaken. There are several “James’s” mentioned in the NT, two of whom were Apostles. The most prominent was James the brother of John, who with Peter and John formed the most trusted inner circle of disciples of the Jesus. This James was put to death by Herod prior to this council meeting (Acts 12:2). Paul was probably ordained an Apostle as a successor to this James, just as Matthias was ordained to succeed to Judas (which in turn demonstrates the importance of the perpetuity of that most important Twelve-man council).

Then we have James the son of Alpheus, who was also an Apostle. Next we have James the Brother of the Lord, also known as James the Just. This James appears to have held an important position in Jerusalem, but it is not known what that position was. There is no clear evidence that he was a bishop. In addition to these there are two other James’s mentioned, whose identities are not entirely clear. There is some disagreement among scholars as to the exact number of these James’s. Now it is not known which James it was that spoke at the Council. If it was James the Apostle, the son Alpheus, he definitely would not have been the bishop of Jerusalem. If it was James the Just, the brother of the Lord (not an Apostle), he may have been the bishop of Jerusalem, but that is speculation. There is no clear evidence that he was.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

You don’t really know this. What we are told is that there was much debate over the issue. We cannot assume that all the Apostles felt the same way from the beginning, and that it was only others who disagreed.

We have a pretty good idea. The scriptures make that reasonably clear.

Acts 15:

1 And certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, {this is after they had arrived at Jerusalem, and met the apostles there} That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
So Paul and Barnabas, and other Apostles including Peter, were opposed to the idea from the beginning. Those who favored the idea were just “certain men, which came from Judæa” and “certain of the sect of the Pharasees which believed”. They were not the Apostles. Paul in fact was so opposed to the idea that he devoted his whole epistle to the Galatians to this subject, bitterly attacking the idea, and those who promoted it. The Galatians it appears had been particularly influenced by this doctrine. Note in particular the following passage:

Galatians 2:

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
In other words, he is telling the Galatians that the leadership of the Church (the Apostles) had never required that the Gentiles should be circumcised. This is a new idea being proposed by those Jewish converts. He begins his epistle to the Galatians as folows:

Galatians 1:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we {i.e. the Apostles} have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
This “another gospel” that he is talking about refers to this idea being proposed by the Jewish converts, that the Gentiles should be baptized. To cut a long story short, there is little reason to doubt that the dispute was between the leadership of the Church and these Jewish converts; not among the leadership themselves.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

What we do know is that once Peter spoke, all fell silent. Why do you think this was included in the scripture?–To demonstrate Peter’s primacy, which is demonstrated many other times in scripture as well.

I think you are just reading too much into that, and blowing it out of all reasonable proportion. See above. You are trying to build your case on a rather flimsy argument.

I actually think we are in agreement that Peter was prime among the Apostles.

That appears to be the case…

Where we disagree is that you believe the organization of twelve Apostles was itself a fixed institution that should have continued.

Yes, that is correct.

Scripture, however, does not support this position, nor does early church history.

I think it does. I have given enough scriptural evidence to support that claim. No need to go over that again.

Christ chose twelve as a fulfillment of the Old Testament twelve tribes of Israel. He never said that this specific institution would continue in its original number as the church would grow.

There are enough scriptural evidence to suggest that they were meant to continue.

Apostles were special because they either new Christ personally during his earthly ministry or, in the case of Paul, had a dramatic visit by Christ himself.

I agree that Apostles are special. But how do you know that modern Apostles have not had similar type of experiences as Paul did?

Apostolic authority, however, did continue through the office of bishop.

No such thing. The office of bishop is totally different from that of Apostle.

This is supported both by scripture and early church history.

It is certainly not supported by scripture; and I doubt if by early Church history.

Ancient bishops had to demonstrate a pedigree of ordination leading directly back to one of the original twelve.

I am sure they were! Modern priesthood holders in the LDS Church (of all offices of priesthood) also can show their priesthood lineage in the same way. It does not mean that they are all Apostles.

Every Catholic bishop today can do the same. In fact, to deomonstrate a great apostacy, you would have to show where a break took place in such ordinations.

Yes, a break did take place. It happened when the Apostles died, and the keys of the priesthood over the Church was taken from the earth.

amgid

 

[majick275]

yet we never see in scripture that without the apostles the keys are no longer valid.

We see no LDS scripture that invalidates the authority of bishops, elders, etc. in the absence of apostles and we certainly don’t see it in the Bible.

We do see JS establishing and organizing a church for quite some time WITHOUT apostles. He presided over the church with only the office of “first elder” for some time. He didn’t even claim apostleship after allegedly receiving the keys from Peter, James and John.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

yet we never see in scripture that without the apostles the keys are no longer valid.

The scriptures say that the Apostles form the foundation. If the foundation is gone, the house is gone.

We see no LDS scripture that invalidates the authority of bishops, elders, etc. in the absence of apostles and we certainly don’t see it in the Bible.

Same answer as above.

We do see JS establishing and organizing a church for quite some time WITHOUT apostles. He presided over the church with only the office of “first elder” for some time. He didn’t even claim apostleship after allegedly receiving the keys from Peter, James and John.

Answer given several times before. Not necessary to give it again.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

Are you guys going to get back to the topic of the “Great Apostasy” and the total lack of evidence thereof.

Peace

 

[majick275]

I think we are.

amgid posits that the death of the Apostles IS the Great Apostasy as it eliminates what he considers to be required priesthood authority. There is however, no sriptural evidence that they ever taught that.

I submit that the Apostles are STILL the foundation of the church. They stilll serve God even after death. Christ has brought them into his presence where they serve him forever. We have their words still and are faithful to their teachings. The FACT that we still teach and practice what they taught us is evidence that we are NOT apostate.

In Jesus time he referred to the “law and the prophets” on multiple occasions yet those prophets were dead. He taught us that their words in scripture are still in effect and so they are in essence still “with us”. The same principle applies to the apostles. Because we still have their words to guide us they are STILL our foundation.

 

[dennisknapp]

majick275:

I think we are.

amgid posits that the death of the Apostles IS the Great Apostasy as it eliminates what he considers to be required priesthood authority. There is however, no sriptural evidence that they ever taught that.

I submit that the Apostles are STILL the foundation of the church. They stilll serve God even after death. Christ has brought them into his presence where they serve him forever. We have their words still and are faithful to their teachings. The FACT that we still teach and practice what they taught us is evidence that we are NOT apostate.

In Jesus time he referred to the “law and the prophets” on multiple occasions yet those prophets were dead. He taught us that their words in scripture are still in effect and so they are in essence still “with us”. The same principle applies to the apostles. Because we still have their words to guide us they are STILL our foundation.

I see what you are saying, good point. But amgid will just go round and around with you quoting scripture through his mormon filter. Better to seek concrete evidence than go back and forth over hypotheticals.

Peace

 

[majick275]

Goodness, there is so much evidence against the Great Apostasy. I wanted a good concise summation and found this from Catholics United for the Faith:

*Christ assured St. Peter, the first Pope, that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He founded on him, the chief Apostle (Mt. 16:18). The Holy Spirit through St. Paul teaches us that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus also taught that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth (Jn. 16:13) and that He would be with us until the end of the world (Mt. 28:20).

  If JW teaching were correct, all of these verses would be false. It is an affront to God to suggest that the devil could prevail over Christ and His Church, particularly after His redemptive death and resurrection (cf. Rom. 5:12-21).

  Every time a great controversy has erupted in Church history, a significant written record has been preserved testifying to the crisis, such as the Arian heresy, which denied that Jesus was God, and Martin Luther’s break with the Church in the 1500s. Yet, there is no evidence of a great apostasy of the early Church. There are only historical records that the early Christians believed in Christ, His Catholic Church, and Her teachings. In fact, Pope Clement, the fourth pope, exercised and affirmed his authority as the Successor of St. Peter in the late first century, and various Early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus of Lyon, also affirmed the papacy. Meanwhile other Fathers, like St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr, also consistently taught Catholic doctrines like the Eucharist.

  Not even the anti-Christian Roman Empire, in its ongoing persecutions of the Church before 300 A.D., ever claimed a great apostasy. The “burden of proof” is on the one who claims there was a great apostasy; that is, one who makes a claim, as in a court of law, must provide evidence for his case. The JWs cannot substantiate their case becaus*e, in short, they have none

Just replace the JW with LDS and it illustrates my position very well.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Sorry if I am currently interrupting the current conversation, but at the end of the last page I saw something I wanted to comment on.

I have now seen from a few Catholics here the judgment that LDS apologetics is bogus. This is somewhat troublesome to me, as I feel completely differently about it, so let’s take a minute to discuss it. The reason given for this is that Mormon apologetics deals primarily in plausibilities, possibilities, hypotheticals, "if"s, etc. I agree with this, but I’m not sure why that’s such a bad thing.

Take, for example, horses in the BoM. This is one of those arguments in which there is not a very strong LDS defense. It’s very open. Basically, the BoM mentions horses during Jaredite and Nephite times, yet when the Spaniards got here there were no horses anywhere; anachronism negating the BoM, right?

First, what is the primary objective of apologetics in the first place? Is it to prove true our beliefs? I don’t think so. The purpose is to answer the arguments that anti-Mos make in such a way that belief is not unreasonable. It is not to tip the scales in favor of Mormonism but to balnce them, to match them. If a stone is added to the ‘untrue’ side that stone simply has to be removed. The expected outcome is that the original opinions be arrived at, as if the antis had never said anythhing at all. Take a look at the Faith thread if you disagree.

Well, back to the case: the apologist would tell you a few different things, maybe even that the horses mentioned in the BoM are not horses as we would know them, but tapyrs. Of course, this seems like reaching at straws, but I think it’s a perfectly valid option to explore, even if I don’t buy into it myself. This argument doesn’t come out of thin air, as it first would appear. The Romans essentially called the hippo a water (or river) horse, which looks nothing like a horse. So is it a possibility? Yes. Does it convince me? Not really. Although, I have seen no anti-Mormon rebuttal to this either. Maybe they don’t think one is necessary.

There’s another option, that horses were actually here in the Americas many, many years ago, as has been seen archaeologically, but have since become extinct. This is obvious; the only question is when. Could they have all been killed off between the time the Nephites were killed off and when the Spaniards got here? Sure, I don’t see why not. The antis certainly haven’t been able to prove otherwise.

Therefore, there are plausibilities, but they’re not unfounded. There is still room for faith, and to a believing saint these look interesting. It’s a way of working with what we have and not demanding more of God, which is probably a good idea. In this way, faith is reasonable, but not proven; if it was proven then it would no longer be faith, would it?

So again, I’m not sure why Mormon apologetics is so ridiculous to you. In fact, this is a sentiment that I haven’t seen elsewhere; usually, the protestants are very quick to jump on us, insulting the apologists and all, but when actually presented with rebuttals they know not what to do. This has been my experience up till now. That when an anti delivers a hit to the Church the apologists essentially say, “You don’t convince me,” and then the antis come back with, “Well, you don’t convince me!” and then the apologists say, “Well, good for you then.” Basically it seems to be a vain struggle either way. For one who wants to believe that the Church is wrong he will give more credence to the antis, while a believing member will be much more easily swayed by the apologists.

If I’m misunderstanding things, let me know.

 

[majick275]

I would have you look to the thread on Mormon apologetics for your answers.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

amgid posits that the death of the Apostles IS the Great Apostasy as it eliminates what he considers to be required priesthood authority. There is however, no sriptural evidence that they ever taught that.

I’ve amgid - and only amgid - in my ‘ignore’ file but I am able to see that he’s been posting quite a bit on this thread. Perhaps I will remove the ignore. My problem with him is only when he becomes rude, uncivil, lacking in charity whatsoever - it makes me angry and I am generally very, very slow to anger so, at the last outrage, which I’ll not discuss, I thought it best to ignore than to rise to the bait.

However, if he is managing to maintain an acceptable level of civility, I will have to remove him from my ‘ignore’ list, as I genuinely enjoy reading many of his posts.

So my first question should be, I suppose, has amgid toned down the personal attacks, rudeness, and incivility to the point where his messages can be read without sparking a self-admittedly long fuse?

That said and first question asked, has amgid actually and literally suggested that “The Great Apostasy” began at the death of the last Apostle?

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

Yes, a break did take place. It happened when the Apostles died, and the keys of the priesthood over the Church was taken from the earth.

This is your biggest mistake. Neither the bible nor church history says that the keys were ever taken from the earth. If they were, nobody told the church, and nobody knew about it–for 1700 years!. So here we go for 1700 years of the church spreading the gospel throughout the earth, but all the while not knowing that God “took away the keys.” Then Joseph Smith comes along and makes the claim that this church is an abomination. Simply rediculous.

And by the way, even your own church cannot definitively state when the apostacy really happened, so your statement is neither authoritative nor accurate.

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

Sorry if I am currently interrupting the current conversation, but at the end of the last page I saw something I wanted to comment on.

If you would ask the moderator to move this message to the “Mormon apologetics” thread - and delete this message after doing so - I would like to respond: I don’t wish to add to the off-topic traffic.

 

[majick275]

ben_dy:

I’ve amgid - and only amgid - in my ‘ignore’ file but I am able to see that he’s been posting quite a bit on this thread. Perhaps I will remove the ignore. My problem with him is only when he becomes rude, uncivil, lacking in charity whatsoever - it makes me angry and I am generally very, very slow to anger so, at the last outrage, which I’ll not discuss, I thought it best to ignore than to rise to the bait.

However, if he is managing to maintain an acceptable level of civility, I will have to remove him from my ‘ignore’ list, as I genuinely enjoy reading many of his posts.

So my first question should be, I suppose, has amgid toned down the personal attacks, rudeness, and incivility to the point where his messages can be read without sparking a self-admittedly long fuse?

That said and first question asked, has amgid actually and literally suggested that “The Great Apostasy” began at the death of the last Apostle?

nope he’s still the same

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris-WA:

This is your biggest mistake. Neither the bible nor church history says that the keys were ever taken from the earth. If they were, nobody told the church, and nobody knew about it–for 1700 years!. So here we go for 1700 years of the church spreading the gospel throughout the earth, but all the while not knowing that God “took away the keys.” Then Joseph Smith comes along and makes the claim that this church is an abomination. Simply rediculous.

And by the way, even your own church cannot definitively state when the apostacy really happened, so your statement is neither authoritative nor accurate.

Chris, don’t you see… we don’t need evidence, reason, or logic, etc. All we need is the testemony of Joseph Smith and a subjective “spiritual” experience. Once we have these, our case is iron clad.

Besides, what are facts except leaps in dark anyway. Who knows what happened at any time, in any place. The point is… it could have happened, therefore it did.

Its so clear to me now, finally. Where do I sign?

Peace