The Great Apostasy

[Guest Soul_Searcher]

Actually Brother, Pope John Paul II did, near the end of his life, make an appology on behalf of the Catholic church for the conduct of the church in the past. It was one of the few times I was proud that i had been part of the church.

As for why the non-members bring up Mountain Medow, it could have something to do with the fact that the two sides have never proved either side to be telling the truth. As you said, according to what you have read is where your facts come from, yet there are many different accounts and views, some side with the church, some paint a much different picture. we tend to pick our side based on what we want to be true, but as you have pointed out well, not everyone is willing to take credit for their dirty laundry and admit mistakes made in the past.

[Snow]

The reason we do not believe in Apostolic Succession the EXACT same way as the Catholics do is because Apostolic authority was not given to the first Pope by an Apostle or someone who an Apostle had ordained, but rather he was appointed by the hand of man.

We know from historical records that Constantine, a pagan, ordered the creation of a formalized, unified, and singular church of Rome. He decided that it would be a Christian church because he knew that the doctrines were more unifying than paganism. He selected several men who he named as priests and ordered them to search the records of the Jews, the letters of the early followers of Christ, and anything on Christ Himself, and to select from that what would be the whole of their religious text and the basis for their doctrine. He also had them decide and write what the tenents or doctrine of the church would be and to write it down. He then had them select from among themselves a leader or head of the church.

Bull Alert!!!

False and Misleading.

[Dr T]

I like you Snow. :) When I first came, you answered a question I had directly. I appreciate how you shoot it straight.

[pushka]

Yeah, I appreciate your reply too Snow...I suspected it to be, as you say, 'false and misleading', but wasn't confident enough in my own knowledge to point this out...thanks for your help! :)

[BrotherHinds]

Ok, Ok. because a fellow LDS member has attempted to point out my statements as false it has made me take another glance at the things I said. I am sorry if my statements were a little misleading, but they were things I had gathered from my own personal research on the founding of Catholicism, the Apostasy, the Reformation, and the Restoration. They are not direct quotes from the information I studied, but rather a general theory gathered from that information. Because of the fact that my comments were obviously misleading to some I will thus attempt to herein give information as taken directly from my research, with direct quotes:

From the New Testament we can find evidences of doctrines that existed in the original Church of Christ that Christ Himself established. Doctrines such as baptism by immersion (Romans 6), the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Heb. 6:1-2), modern prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:18-20; 4:11-14), priesthood authority from God (Heb. 5:8,9), and so forth.

It has been asked by some, "Why was a restoration needed? Haven't we always had the Bible?"

It is not necesarily that the documents were lost, but it was the loss of priesthood power, whose keys were to be held by the 12 Apostles. Further, the obvious loss of the original Church organization, the loss of key ordinances (e.g., giving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands), the loss of apostles and other priesthood offices, and the reign of civil authority in the remaining shell of the original Church are all signs that the prophesied falling away occurred (2 Thess. 2:1-3) and that a restitution was necessary (Acts 3:19-21).

One of many signs that an apostasy had occurred was the emergence of Mary as Mediatrix - the mediator between God and man - to whom prayers were directed. Likewise, other saints became viewed as mediators and prayers were directed to (or through) them. There is none of this in the earliest Christian writings. One can read every page of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers - the earliest writings of Church leaders outside the New Testament, leaders who were familiar with the apostolic traditions from the New Testament Church - and find Mary mentioned only a couple times by Ignatius, who simply affirms what the New Testament teaches, that she was the mother of Christ and a virgin at the birth of Christ. There is no hint of her preeminence, of her role as a mediator, or her perpetual virginity, etc. The early Christian writers affirmed that man should approach God directly through Christ as the mediator.

The influence of Greek philosophy played an important role in the apostasy, leading to much doctrinal loss. Serious problems were fueled by the struggle of educated men to make Christianity seem more acceptable to the intellectual community of the day - a community steeped in the teachings of Plato and other Greek philosophers, to whom the idea of a tangible God with a material body was repugnant. With the loss of revelation, committees of men debated and redefined doctrines, resulting in the post-Biblical creeds that give us the modern Trinity concept of a God without body, parts, or passions, an incomprehensible, almost abstract, "wholly other" Being with three persons of one substance.

This idea of a tangible God with a material body was also repugnant to Roman pagans like Constantine, who did not convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed.

Shortly after the loss of the Apostles, the Christian leader Tertullian seemed to have recognized the apostate threat of Greek philosophical influences on the Church. He said, "Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!" Another of Tertullian's comments seems to apply well to the gulf between the Hellenized metaphysics of the creeds and the approach of early Christianity:

"What is there, then, about them that is alike, the philosopher and the Christian - the disciple of Hellas and the disciple of Heaven - the dealer in reputation and the dealer in salvation - one occupied with words and one with deeds - one creator of error and its destroyer - friend of error and its foe - the despoiler of truth and its restorer - its robber and warden?"

Interestingly, many of our most vocal critics condemn us for not sharing the "right" Trinitarian philosophies about God, and for teaching the importance of deeds. They seem to put an emphasis on words and metaphysics, while early and restored Christianity are rooted in deeds and behavior. If you reject this thought, take a few minutes and read the Sermon on the Mount. Compare that to the modern doctrines of the Trinity, of salvation apart from works, of irresistible grace, original guilt, and other philosophical views that are miles away from the focus of Christ's teachings but close cousins to Greek philosophy. Tertullian was right to be worried. Human philosophy contributed to the spoiling of early Christianity, and continues to be antagonistic to the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tertullian's concerns about the influence of philosophy were justified. For example, Augustine, the father of so much of the doctrinal framework of both Protestant and Roman Catholic theology, seems to have considered himself a philosopher. He placed little emphasis on revealed truth but much on "natural philosophy," which "turns out to be what philosophers, and specifically what he, believed were Plato's views concerning divine things.... Augustine argued that Plato ... provided a necessary intellectual grounding for a mature Christian faith" Many of his teachings find little support in the Bible, but are the result of wresting the scriptures to comply with the demands of human philosophy. This becomes painfully apparent, for example, in considering his views on original sin and the guilt of infants, or in the relationship between faith, works, and salvation.

That Augustine is the source of much modern theology is a point that many non-LDS scholars recognize. Even some evangelical writers have stated as much, in spite of the popular evangelical assumption that their theology comes straight from the Bible. It may come largely from the Bible, but the framework for understanding and interpreting the Bible is one that has been developed over many centuries, and the father of much of that framework is Augustine. Thus, the evangelical writers Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie in Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, p. 431)

declare that Augustinianism "was the major soteriological framework that informed Western Christianity. Both Roman Catholics an Protestants are indebted to the Bishop of Hippo [Augustine]." Further, they state that "both Catholics and orthodox [evangelical?] Protestants have a common creedal and Augustinian doctrinal background. Both groups accept the creeds and confession and councils of the Christian church of the first five centuries. Both claim Augustine as a mentor"

Eastern Orthodox writers have also made this point, though without the favorable implications that Geisler and MacKenzie ascribe to the framework of Augustine. In fact, Eastern Orthodox writers, who are less indebted to Augustine (but still not free from the influences of Greek philosophy on the post-Apostolic Church), have expressed great discomfort with Augustine's doctrines, particularly the doctrine of original sin, seeing it as misanthropic in the condemnation of infants as vile sinners.

Protestants often feel that their doctrines come straight from the Bible, even when many core doctrines are set in language borrowed from philosophers, not the Bible. Doctrines such as the Trinity, original sin, salvation by grace alone, and others are not found taught in the Bible - certainly not in the language and forms used to describe these doctrines, language which, ironically, is used as a litmus test to determine who is a true Christian and who is not. Personally, I share Tertullian's prescient discomfort with Christianity mixed with philosophy, and its emphasis on words rather than deeds. The test of faith for true Christians should not be acceptance of the metaphysical formulations of a combative post-Biblical committee of philosophers - but faith in Jesus Christ, expressed in part by deeds based on His teachings.

[Snow]

Dr. T, Puska,

I am no great fan of Constantine in his role as would-be religious empire-builder. However, there is enough to criticize in his actions or the actions of the early Christian Church without distorting his role. This is what I objected to (though it seems as if the poster is also trying to set things straight):

We know from historical records that Constantine, a pagan, ordered the creation of a formalized, unified, and singular church of Rome.

Not true. Constantine was originally a pagan but most scholars agree that he had some sort of conversion experience. While he may have promoted Christianity for other than purely relgious purposes, accounts indicate that he was sincere in his faith. Admittedly he was a bloodthirsty and evil man by today's standards but his belief in the veracity of the Christian message (as he understood it) probably shouldn't be called seriously into question. He was a believer.... a bad Christian yes, but a believing one.

Further - he didn't make Christianity the singular church of Rome. Christianity had his blessing but paganism was also protected as a religion.

He decided that it would be a Christian church because he knew that the doctrines were more unifying than paganism.

...possibly true but I doubt that can be demonstrated sufficiently from any ancient sources... only inferred.

He selected several men who he named as priests and ordered them to search the records of the Jews, the letters of the early followers of Christ, and anything on Christ Himself, and to select from that what would be the whole of their religious text and the basis for their doctrine. He also had them decide and write what the tenents or doctrine of the church would be and to write it down.

This must mean that he was the driving force behind the Bible canon; something which is just plain false. It is a simple fact of history that the bible canon was seperately formed without Constantine.

He did, however, play an active and important role in the formation of the Nicene Creed. I always wonder how someone can accept a creed brought into existence primarily through the efforts of a mass murderer and serial killer and a non-Christian (not formally a Christian - just a believer at the time).

He then had them select from among themselves a leader or head of the church.

Again, simply not true. While Constantine did appoint or direct to be appointed some bishops, there was already a bishop of Rome (pope) without and before Constantine.

[Traveler]

Snow: I think you are right about Constantine as sort of being a Christian - though not a very good one but Theodosius is a whole other matter.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Snow: I think you are right about Constantine as sort of being a Christian - though not a very good one but Theodosius is a whole other matter.

The Traveler

It was Theodosius who made Nicene Christianity the State Religion. He was also excommunicated for the mass murder of several thousands inhabitants of Thessalonica.

[pushka]

Hi Snow, I apologise for misinterpreting your reply.

The feel of the post you were querying just didn't seem right to me. I have heard about how the Bishop of Rome separated from the other Bishops (due to doctrinal beliefs...infallibility of the pope?) and that this is why the Roman Catholic church became separate from the others. It just didn't seem to fit the version of the story that the post was telling.

I do need to research these things myself more often, to be secure in my knowledge of them...unfortunately I have memory problems at the mo.!! Sorry :)

[Snow]

Hi Snow, I apologise for misinterpreting your reply.

The feel of the post you were querying just didn't seem right to me. I have heard about how the Bishop of Rome separated from the other Bishops (due to doctrinal beliefs...infallibility of the pope?) and that this is why the Roman Catholic church became separate from the others.

In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Pope involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Ortho...he_Great_Schism

[pushka]

Thanks for the extra info and the link Snow :)

[Jason]

The reason we do not believe in Apostolic Succession the EXACT same way as the Catholics do is because Apostolic authority was not given to the first Pope by an Apostle or someone who an Apostle had ordained, but rather he was appointed by the hand of man.

That's incorrect. Every Bishop walking the planet today can show an apostolic lineage back to one apostle or another. The question is, can you prove that there is no historic continuity?

This was a church organized by man, the organization of which was ordered by man and not God, and the first leaders were appointed by a man, who not only did not have proper authority from God, but was also a pagan.

Constantine was not a pagan. He was a catechumen, and he waited to be baptised because he didn't want to live in sin before God. As for this uninspired stuff, that's highly debatable. People viewed the Emperor as a divine office just as much as any Bishop or Prophet. We have the Old Testament to thank for that too.

Also, after this time and until the begining of the Reformation, anyone who challenged the authority and doctrines of the Catholic church as directed from the Vatican in Rome was severely punished and even killed by hanging, torture, beheading, or burning at the stake. Would Christ have supported such measures for disobedience or challenging of doctrines? I think not.

Apparently god never had a problem with that kind of violence before. You have read the Bible, right?

[CrimsonKairos]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Jason here. I'm not saying that the Catholic church has valid priesthood authority, but rather, Jason's three points above are solid. The way the LDS "prove" there was no historic continuity of priesthood ordinations and handing down of keys, is by pointing to the fact that God sent Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist to restore them in the 1800's. Whether someone believes the priesthood was actually restored is a matter of faith, just as it is to believe the Catholics preserved the apostolic office through the centuries. I carry my "line of authority" linking me back to the New Testamnet apostles through priesthood ordinations. Whether someone views that as valid, or the Catholic claims as valid, is the result of personal conviction and testimony, not historical or empirical data.

[Snow]

That's incorrect. Every Bishop walking the planet today can show an apostolic lineage back to one apostle or another.

In theory. In practice - I don't think so..

The question is, can you prove that there is no historic continuity?

That's not the question... burden of proof and all that. It is the RCC that is making the claim and the poster is disagreeing.

Constantine was not a pagan.

In fact Constantine WAS a pagan.

Apparently god never had a problem with that kind of violence before. You have read the Bible, right?

Of course i in this day and age we hold people to a higher standard than the god represented by the OT writers. I dare say that such a peron(age) would be labeled a war criminal for crimes against humanity nowadays.

[Jason]

In fact Constantine WAS a pagan.

Initially, yes. But his conversion apparently was sincere and by the time he called Nicea, he was a catechumen. His Christian mother apparently did have some influence on him at the time. Now a better argument would be whether Constantine was an Arian Christian, or an Orthodox Christian.

Of course i in this day and age we hold people to a higher standard than the god represented by the OT writers. I dare say that such a peron(age) would be labeled a war criminal for crimes against humanity nowadays.

Indeed.

[BrotherHinds]

Initially, yes. But his conversion apparently was sincere and by the time he called Nicea, he was a catechumen. His Christian mother apparently did have some influence on him at the time. Now a better argument would be whether Constantine was an Arian Christian, or an Orthodox Christian.

I believe you are wrong in that assessment, because from the studying I have done, Constantine did not fully convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed. Up until that point he was still worshiping at the pagan temples and praying to Mars, Jupitar, and Venus.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

Initially, yes. But his conversion apparently was sincere and by the time he called Nicea, he was a catechumen. His Christian mother apparently did have some influence on him at the time. Now a better argument would be whether Constantine was an Arian Christian, or an Orthodox Christian.

I believe you are wrong in that assessment, because from the studying I have done, Constantine did not fully convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed. Up until that point he was still worshiping at the pagan temples and praying to Mars, Jupitar, and Venus.

Im going by Rubenstein's text. You?

[BrotherHinds]

Im going by Rubenstein's text. You?

I am going on discussions in my Philosphy of Religion class at Ohio State Univeristy, Newark Campus. I am also going on programs shown on the History Channel about early Christianity and Emperor Constantine.

[Jason]

Im going by Rubenstein's text. You?

I am going on discussions in my Philosphy of Religion class at Ohio State Univeristy, Newark Campus. I am also going on programs shown on the History Channel about early Christianity and Emperor Constantine.

Discussions with your professor, or other students?

And as much as I love the History Channel, it's not always right. How about some documented sources for your version?