Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[Traveler]

Well, he was not one of the Twelve, obviously. They had a unique function, as I have said. They represented the 12 tribes of Israel and were the foundation upon which the Church was founded. The requirements for belonging to that exclusive club limit membership to the Twelve members at the time of Pentecost, the birth of the Church. They would not be replaced, rather they would be succeeded in terms of authority by the bishops which they ordained, and so on.

As for Paul, he was also given a unique role, directly from Jesus Christ. His influence and work was just as important, but he did not occupy the same position as the Twelve. Before preaching he sought approval from the Apostles. Barnabas was also called an "apostle" and he did great things. The Book of Revelation recognizes the Twelve, and no others.

The unique role given to Paul was the role of Apostle. Paul tells us several times that he was an Apostle and that he was the least according to to qualifications because he "persecuted" the church of G-d. Paul demonstrates that the qualifications of Apostle was evolving as those that were with Christ began to die off. He also proves that the maintaining of the Apostles beyond the original 12 did take place as well as that Apostles would be called even after Bishops were called and established -- proving the the title or calling of Bishop did not replace Apostles or mean that Apostles were no longer needed or essential to the organization established by Christ and therefore not called.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

On a final note, you ask that I humble myself and do a lot of praying about what is true. I was once an avowed atheist. I had a heavenly experience (which is was absolutely necessary for my conversion) and was visited by an angel that revealed to me the truth of Christ and His One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. This is only a personal revelation, however, God chose to humble me in my arrogance as an atheist. I have received personal revelation. Personal revelation however, is not a formula it is bound in a relationship between each person and the person of Christ.

Thank you for sharing this experience. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity.

My father was an atheist before he joined the LDS faith, so I can understand the need for a humbling, but then again, we all need a good humbling every so often.

[Guest]

Who said the President is not necessary? The President in this case is Jesus Christ. The Apostles did not have authority on their own. It was given to them by Christ and then by the Apostles to the bishops. The authority given is the authority of Christ, first given to the Twelve.

Yep. And Christ rules over our bishops, through the Holy Spirit, guiding them into all truth, as he promised he would, so that they don't give out different messages.

No, the Father chose Peter and it can be easily demonstrated that he was first among the Apostles. So his successor is first among the bishops. There is no inconsistency here.

Okay, I see what you mean by Jesus Christ being the President. This still doesn't show the Apostles as having been replaced by Bishops. We learn from the New Testament that the Bishops do give out different messages and the Apostles had to go and correct all the errors. If we follow history through past the New Testament, we see how Councils have to be formed and Bishops have to get pow-wows resolved by debate to come up with a consistent doctrine. This is a deviation from the Apostolic leadership present in the New Testament that is built upon the rock of Revelation. And this is not how we are taught the Holy Spirit works.

[SteveVH]

Okay, I see what you mean by Jesus Christ being the President. This still doesn't show the Apostles as having been replaced by Bishops.

Anatess, the entire idea that new "Apostles" are needed is a novel idea, all of about 175 years old, out the over 2000 years of Christian history. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Twelve Apostles, including Matthias, who replace Judas, are unique as the foundation of the Church. There were never to be any more Apostles. Why do you think that it is impossible for the Apostles to pass on their authority to the bishops? Maynard has already made the point of exactly what was past on to Matthias: "let another his bishoprick take." The Apostles stand unique because they, and only they were the foundation of the Church and it was their teachings on which the Church would be based. The Church would therefore be Apostolic in nature. The office of bishop in the Catholic Church is an apostolic office, each one being able to trace his succession back to one of the Apostles. No other religious community can make that claim.

We learn from the New Testament that the Bishops do give out different messages and the Apostles had to go and correct all the errors. If we follow history through past the New Testament, we see how Councils have to be formed and Bishops have to get pow-wows resolved by debate to come up with a consistent doctrine. This is a deviation from the Apostolic leadership present in the New Testament that is built upon the rock of Revelation. And this is not how we are taught the Holy Spirit works.

You have been misinformed as to the purpose of the various Councils. They were not convened in order to straighten out confusion as to doctrine. They were convened to defend and specifically define doctrines already held, in the face of heresy. Yes, there have been bishops and priests who have been heretical, but the heresies were defeated and the apostolic teachings remained protected. Only when a bishop is in communion with the greater body of bishops under the direction and authority of the Pope, can he teach legitimately in the name of the Church. We have had rogue bishops and the remedy is excommunication with the hope and prayer that they will repent and return to the Church. You are aware that Judas betrayed Christ and Peter denied him three times. The Church is protected by the power of the Holy Spirit, whether its enemies come from within or without.

[Guest]

Anatess, the entire idea that new "Apostles" are needed is a novel idea, all of about 175 years old, out the over 2000 years of Christian history. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Twelve Apostles, including Matthias, who replace Judas, are unique as the foundation of the Church. There were never to be any more Apostles. Why do you think that it is impossible for the Apostles to pass on their authority to the bishops? Maynard has already made the point of exactly what was past on to Matthias: "let another his bishoprick take." The Apostles stand unique because they, and only they were the foundation of the Church and it was their teachings on which the Church would be based. The Church would therefore be Apostolic in nature. The office of bishop in the Catholic Church is an apostolic office, each one being able to trace his succession back to one of the Apostles. No other religious community can make that claim.

And here, in this paragraph lies the beginnings of the Apostasy. Now you hit upon one of the basic fundamental reasons why an Apostasy occurred.

The teaching that there are no need of Apostles past the 12 - Matthias included (by the way, the Catholic Church acknowledges Paul as an Apostle) is apostate. So, you get to start your divergence from there. And so, like I've always tried telling you, your history lesson is flawed at the onset.

So yes, the priesthood was restored in the early 1800's and the proper church organization restored with it. As it should be as Christ set. And just like Jesus Christ personally ordained Paul an Apostle, so did He do so for Joseph Smith.... and in the words of Jack Palance... Believe it, or not. :)

You have been misinformed as to the purpose of the various Councils. They were not convened in order to straighten out confusion as to doctrine. They were convened to defend and specifically define doctrines already held, in the face of heresy. Yes, there have been bishops and priests who have been heretical, but the heresies were defeated and the apostolic teachings remained protected. Only when a bishop is in communion with the greater body of bishops under the direction and authority of the Pope, can he teach legitimately in the name of the Church. We have had rogue bishops and the remedy is excommunication with the hope and prayer that they will repent and return to the Church. You are aware that Judas betrayed Christ and Peter denied him three times. The Church is protected by the power of the Holy Spirit, whether its enemies come from within or without.

The claim you presented here is not true. And you know it. Even the Catholic Church do not go by that concept. Let's go by the first council of Nicea. You know full well that the Catholic Church does not pretend to know if Constantine acted under the direction of Pope Sylvester in organizing the Council. He was Emperor, not Bishop. And his aim was to bring peace to the Empire, not to "stamp out heresy". The council was conducted with debates and theological discussions among the bishops occuring before Constantine even arrived. Arius among others were called upon repeatedly to discuss their opinions for consideration and opposing views considered. It was a debate. Not a "stamping out of heresy" by somebody who already knew that which is true. The Pope was conspicuously absent in these proceedings. In the days of the Apostles, heretical teachings gets one of those letters from the Apostles we so dearly love from the New Testament. There's no "considering of opinions".

As a Catholic, we accept that these Councils are God's way of bringing truth forward. If we consider the possibility of an Apostasy, this process is but one more by-product of a church led by good but blind men.

Edited October 2, 2012 by anatess

[SteveVH]

And here, in this paragraph lies the beginnings of the Apostasy. Now you hit upon one of the basic fundamental reasons why an Apostasy occurred.

The teaching that there are no need of Apostles past the 12 - Matthias included (by the way, the Catholic Church acknowledges Paul as an Apostle) is apostate.

According to who? According to those who depend upon the apostasy in order to justify their very existence? I would expect nothing less from those who have chosen to believe the claims of Joseph Smith, but that in itself does not make this pre-conceived notion true in the least. What this all really boils down to is the Mormon belief that continued revelation is necessary, thus the need for "Apostles" to receive and disseminate modern revelation. Maybe that is the real question to be discussed. If modern revelation is necessary then it follows that the Church would need these so-called "Apostles". If modern revelation is unnecessary, then it would follow that there is no need for modern "Apostles". Would you agree?

The real question is why do you assume that continual scriptural revelation is necessary for the Church in the first place? You will not find that taught in scripture. Is not your source for this assumption the fact that Mormonism claims that there must always be scriptural revelation? If so, then you have not posed a real problem for Catholics or anyone else, since the dilemma only arises from presupposing a Mormon understanding of revelation. I don't grant the assumption that makes this question a problem.

A better answer, however, is that there is warrant from Scripture itself so show that the presence of continual scriptural revelation is not intrinsic to the operations of divine authority. For instance, we have no reason to believe that there was any Scripture in the time of the patriarchs or before them. There were divine covenants and valid priestly offerings, but no special texts. (Of course, Mormonism claims Abraham wrote scripture, but again, you would have to appeal to your own principles, assuming Mormonism from the outset in order to make that argument.) However, even if we accept the Mormon assumptions, we know that there was a Levitical priesthood operating in Israel during the so-called intertestamental period ( the approximate four hundred year period, between the ministry of Malachi (c. 420 BC), who was the last of the Old Testament prophets, and the appearance of John the Baptist in the first century A.D.). This is clear from the fact that Zacharias not only serves in the Temple but gets a revelation there in Luke 1.

The New Testament teaches that "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached." (Luke 16:16) This passage poses a problem for anyone who thinks that the same rules that make scriptural revelation normative in the Church would be the same in the new covenant as in the old. According to Catholicism, the reason there does not need to be new Scripture is that the definitive revelation of God is not a text but the person of Christ himself. The Incarnation as such contains all the truth that God has for man. This is not to say that it exhausts the truth and limits our potential knowledge, but the exact opposite: it points out that an infinite content has already been communicated by God. That is why the author of Hebrews writes, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." In other words, Jesus is the final and comlplete revelation of God to mankind. Clearly a change in the mode of divine speech is indicated here, and no theology about the nature of revelation can afford to overlook it. Yet your assumptions demand that we overlook it, for you are claiming a kind of eternal necessity for new scripture that does not fit with the Biblical teaching.

So, you get to start your divergence from there. And so, like I've always tried telling you, your history lesson is flawed at the onset.

This has nothing at all to do with history, but rather the acceptance of the Mormon presumption that modern revelation, and therefore, modern prophets are necessary.

So yes, the priesthood was restored in the early 1800's and the proper church organization restored with it. As it should be as Christ set. And just like Jesus Christ personally ordained Paul an Apostle, so did He do so for Joseph Smith.... and in the words of Jack Palance... Believe it, or not. :)

Not.

The claim you presented here is not true. And you know it.

You are accusing me of knowingly making an untrue claim. What you are really saying is "You are lying". Let me be very clear here. While I may mis-state something, or at times just be in error as to my understanding, I will never knowingly lie to you. Now lets get on to your next statement.

Even the Catholic Church do not go by that concept. Let's go by the first council of Nicea. You know full well that the Catholic Church does not pretend to know if Constantine acted under the direction of Pope Sylvester in organizing the Council. He was Emperor, not Bishop. And his aim was to bring peace to the Empire, not to "stamp out heresy".

Everything you have said here is true. So what? We have civil unrest based upon a theological principle, the origin of which was the Arian heresy. So we have a secular leader interested in bringing peace to his empire, thus requesting the bishops to meet and put an end to the discord, once and for all. We are not sure of the communications between Pope Sylvester and Constantine prior to the Council but as to whether or not the Pope was in agreement with the Council is evident from the fact that he sent two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, to represent him there. Constantine never intended on having input to the theological discussion and it is highly doubtful that he had any real grasp of the significance of the Arian heresy anyway. He just wanted peace.

Nevertheless, the bishops did not meet due to some state of confusion as to just which doctrine was to be believed. At least 300 bishops gathered for the purpose of defining doctrine in the face of the Arian heresy. All but two of the bishops agreed to the formulation of faith put forth in the Nicene Creed, believing that it inerrantly summarized the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church, specifically the relation and nature of the Persons of the Trinity. The two (Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais), who did not agree were summarily exiled and anathematized along with Arius.

The council was conducted with debates and theological discussions among the bishops occuring before Constantine even arrived. Arius among others were called upon repeatedly to discuss their opinions for consideration and opposing views considered. It was a debate. Not a "stamping out of heresy" by somebody who already knew that which is true.

It was a hearing and the Council gave Arius his day in court, if you will. There were plenty of bishops who arrived that had little if any knowledge of the theological arguments of Arius. It was only proper that they be laid out on the table if an honest assessment was to be made of their continuity with the Apostolic faith.

The Pope was conspicuously absent in these proceedings.

As I have already stated, the Pope had two representatives at the Council. They assisted the president, Hosius of Cordova, in overseeing the Council.

In the days of the Apostles, heretical teachings gets one of those letters from the Apostles we so dearly love from the New Testament. There's no "considering of opinions".

You need to read about the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts and then tell me that there's no considering of opinions. In any event, epistles of the New Testament were not the product of a Council so we can hardly compare the two. Even today, if we have a rogue bishop whose teachings do not comport with the Apostolic faith, the Pope has the authority to chastise and excommunicate them without calling a Council. In addition to the Arius matter, there were twenty canons that were approved at the Council of Nicea and I guarantee that there was much discussion in that regard. Nevertheless, the fact that there was discussion and debate does not negate the fact that the Church gathered to specifically define what the Church had always believed in the face of one who challenged those beliefs. And as I have pointed out there was almost perfect unanimity (298 out of 300) among the bishops which is not evidence of confusion, but rather clarity and unity of belief.

As a Catholic, we accept that these Councils are God's way of bringing truth forward. If we consider the possibility of an Apostasy, this process is but one more by-product of a church led by good but blind men.

Yes, but you must begin with the presupposition that the apostasy occurred. I don't, nor do I believe history comes close to supporting the proposition.

Edited October 2, 2012 by StephenVH

[Maynard]

The claim you presented here is not true. And you know it. Even the Catholic Church do not go by that concept. Let's go by the first council of Nicea. You know full well that the Catholic Church does not pretend to know if Constantine acted under the direction of Pope Sylvester in organizing the Council. He was Emperor, not Bishop. And his aim was to bring peace to the Empire, not to "stamp out heresy". The council was conducted with debates and theological discussions among the bishops occuring before Constantine even arrived. Arius among others were called upon repeatedly to discuss their opinions for consideration and opposing views considered. It was a debate. Not a "stamping out of heresy" by somebody who already knew that which is true. The Pope was conspicuously absent in these proceedings. In the days of the Apostles, heretical teachings gets one of those letters from the Apostles we so dearly love from the New Testament. There's no "considering of opinions".

As a Catholic, we accept that these Councils are God's way of bringing truth forward. If we consider the possibility of an Apostasy, this process is but one more by-product of a church led by good but blind men.

Anatess,

I respectfully disagree with your sentiments about how the councils have functioned throughout history, and your impression of how the Catholic Church has viewed these councils. Often times, what we know to be true creates boundaries that other truths must fall between. For instance, we know that God is sovereign, and we know that man has free will. If we hold both of these things to be true, and we are interested in learning more about how God and man interact in the plan of salvation, we can only adopt principles that do not violate truths that have already been accepted.

At Nicea, Arius was summoned several times, so that his formulation of God could be heard in his own voice. The bishops then discussed the ramifications of these writings in order to discern whether they violated the principles of the faith and distorted the teachings of the nature of God. When the formulation of the creed was first offered to the council 313 of the 318 bishops present assented to the creed convinced that it affirmed the teachings on the nature of God. Two others were uncomfortable with a couple of words used, and that others may easily twist them to a misunderstanding.

I am short of time so I must end this comment, but the point is that there is an enormous difference between debating the truth of a doctrine and hammering out language that will put a finer point on the teachings that are being misunderstood in order to avoid future issues.

[Traveler]

Anatess,

I respectfully disagree with your sentiments about how the councils have functioned throughout history, and your impression of how the Catholic Church has viewed these councils. Often times, what we know to be true creates boundaries that other truths must fall between. For instance, we know that God is sovereign, and we know that man has free will. If we hold both of these things to be true, and we are interested in learning more about how God and man interact in the plan of salvation, we can only adopt principles that do not violate truths that have already been accepted.

At Nicea, Arius was summoned several times, so that his formulation of God could be heard in his own voice. The bishops then discussed the ramifications of these writings in order to discern whether they violated the principles of the faith and distorted the teachings of the nature of God. When the formulation of the creed was first offered to the council 313 of the 318 bishops present assented to the creed convinced that it affirmed the teachings on the nature of God. Two others were uncomfortable with a couple of words used, and that others may easily twist them to a misunderstanding.

I am short of time so I must end this comment, but the point is that there is an enormous difference between debating the truth of a doctrine and hammering out language that will put a finer point on the teachings that are being misunderstood in order to avoid future issues.

Part of our difference comes in a principle that we believe must be present among any quorum or governing council -- that is that G-d is the authority and as spoken of in James 1:5 that G-d be asked; especially if there is disagreement. Therefore, for LDS before any quorum or council can publish a finding there must be "common consent" as there were with the apostles anciently - such that there were no disputations among them in what they publish -- without which we do not believe G-d has spoken through such quorum or council. We believe that the loss of such revelation of unity the ancient church fell into apostasy - and we see early creeds as proof that the apostolic unity was lost.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Anatess,

I respectfully disagree with your sentiments about how the councils have functioned throughout history, and your impression of how the Catholic Church has viewed these councils. Often times, what we know to be true creates boundaries that other truths must fall between. For instance, we know that God is sovereign, and we know that man has free will. If we hold both of these things to be true, and we are interested in learning more about how God and man interact in the plan of salvation, we can only adopt principles that do not violate truths that have already been accepted.

At Nicea, Arius was summoned several times, so that his formulation of God could be heard in his own voice. The bishops then discussed the ramifications of these writings in order to discern whether they violated the principles of the faith and distorted the teachings of the nature of God. When the formulation of the creed was first offered to the council 313 of the 318 bishops present assented to the creed convinced that it affirmed the teachings on the nature of God. Two others were uncomfortable with a couple of words used, and that others may easily twist them to a misunderstanding.

I am short of time so I must end this comment, but the point is that there is an enormous difference between debating the truth of a doctrine and hammering out language that will put a finer point on the teachings that are being misunderstood in order to avoid future issues.

Maynard, we can go back and forth on this one. Like I said, if you're Catholic, you'll hold to your interpretation of the events, if you're not, you'll have a different one.

The Catholic text books that my Catholic School used in teaching Church History (High School) used the word Debate. In the light of the absence of apostasy, there was no point in hearing out Arius. Those holding to Catholic Tradition know full well what Arian belief entails as far as the creed goes. Based on the outcome of the Council, we can deduce that Arius was heretic, therefore, those in authority can hammer out the creed without Arian input... if those in authority were clear in what the true doctrine of the mystery of the Trinity really entailed.

[Guest]

According to who? According to those who depend upon the apostasy in order to justify their very existence? I would expect nothing less from those who have chosen to believe the claims of Joseph Smith, but that in itself does not make this pre-conceived notion true in the least. What this all really boils down to is the Mormon belief that continued revelation is necessary, thus the need for "Apostles" to receive and disseminate modern revelation. Maybe that is the real question to be discussed. If modern revelation is necessary then it follows that the Church would need these so-called "Apostles". If modern revelation is unnecessary, then it would follow that there is no need for modern "Apostles". Would you agree?

Agree. That God quit talking to man after John died is but another one of those by-products of apostasy.

The real question is why do you assume that continual scriptural revelation is necessary for the Church in the first place? You will not find that taught in scripture.

Of course it is taught in scripture. It has been God's pattern throughout the history of man depicted all over the Bible. Changing this pattern just because John died is the concept that is out of the norm.

Is not your source for this assumption the fact that Mormonism claims that there must always be scriptural revelation?

No. I did not study the Apostasy for evidence that the LDS Church is true. I studied the Apostasy to make sure I wasn't following Catholicism blindly. Therefore, my only question when spiritually contemplating the Apostasy was, "Is the Catholic Church the true Church?".

If so, then you have not posed a real problem for Catholics or anyone else, since the dilemma only arises from presupposing a Mormon understanding of revelation. I don't grant the assumption that makes this question a problem.

A better answer, however, is that there is warrant from Scripture itself so show that the presence of continual scriptural revelation is not intrinsic to the operations of divine authority. For instance, we have no reason to believe that there was any Scripture in the time of the patriarchs or before them. There were divine covenants and valid priestly offerings, but no special texts. (Of course, Mormonism claims Abraham wrote scripture, but again, you would have to appeal to your own principles, assuming Mormonism from the outset in order to make that argument.) However, even if we accept the Mormon assumptions, we know that there was a Levitical priesthood operating in Israel during the so-called intertestamental period ( the approximate four hundred year period, between the ministry of Malachi (c. 420 BC), who was the last of the Old Testament prophets, and the appearance of John the Baptist in the first century A.D.). This is clear from the fact that Zacharias not only serves in the Temple but gets a revelation there in Luke 1.

The New Testament teaches that "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached." (Luke 16:16) This passage poses a problem for anyone who thinks that the same rules that make scriptural revelation normative in the Church would be the same in the new covenant as in the old. According to Catholicism, the reason there does not need to be new Scripture is that the definitive revelation of God is not a text but the person of Christ himself. The Incarnation as such contains all the truth that God has for man. This is not to say that it exhausts the truth and limits our potential knowledge, but the exact opposite: it points out that an infinite content has already been communicated by God. That is why the author of Hebrews writes, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." In other words, Jesus is the final and comlplete revelation of God to mankind. Clearly a change in the mode of divine speech is indicated here, and no theology about the nature of revelation can afford to overlook it. Yet your assumptions demand that we overlook it, for you are claiming a kind of eternal necessity for new scripture that does not fit with the Biblical teaching.

I don't understand what you're talking about here. I'm confused by your use of Luke 16:16. I hear you say Revelation is not needed anymore after John the Baptist by virtue of Luke 16:16? I must have misunderstood you because Christ is the revelation and He is definitely way past John the Baptist. And even His appearance to Paul was waaaay after John the Baptist and after the ascension.

Or are you saying that the fulfillment of the prophesies in The Law and The Prophets ends revelation? I don't understand that either. Jesus Christ is not the "final revelation". Jesus Christ is THE Revelation. He has been revealed since the creation of the earth and He continues to be revealed today and will continue to be revealed tomorrow.

Or are you saying that by virtue of Luke 16:16, prophets are not needed anymore? Why would you say that? Prophets prophesy. There are still things of the kingdom that are still being prophesied - for instance, the second coming of Christ, the millineum, etc. Therefore, there would still be prophets that speak of these things.

Interestingly, the Catholic and the LDS understanding of Luke 16:16 is identical. It has nothing to do with the need for prophets having ended but merely that the prophesies of the 2 Jewish scriptures, The Law and The Prophets, is fulfilled in Christ. So that those who embrace the new and everlasting covenant are to live in perfect virtue unlike those bound by the law of Moses whose covenant was a lesser law.

This has nothing at all to do with history, but rather the acceptance of the Mormon presumption that modern revelation, and therefore, modern prophets are necessary.

I'm not even talking about what Mormons believe here. I'm only talking about whether an apostasy could have happened. I thought that's what the thread is all about.

Not.

Of course. An affirmative is impossible by intellectual discussions absent the influence of the Holy Spirit. As we all experienced with majority of the heresies brought to Council - they are mostly bishops/philosophers spinning intellectual analysis of written scripture to come up with their own ideas.

You are accusing me of knowingly making an untrue claim. What you are really saying is "You are lying". Let me be very clear here. While I may mis-state something, or at times just be in error as to my understanding, I will never knowingly lie to you. Now lets get on to your next statement.

I did not mean to imply you were lying. I only meant that you forgot to take into consideration something you would know is true as a Catholic. I apologize for the poor phrasing of what I wanted to say. I can be such an idiot sometimes.

Everything you have said here is true. So what? We have civil unrest based upon a theological principle, the origin of which was the Arian heresy. So we have a secular leader interested in bringing peace to his empire, thus requesting the bishops to meet and put an end to the discord, once and for all. We are not sure of the communications between Pope Sylvester and Constantine prior to the Council but as to whether or not the Pope was in agreement with the Council is evident from the fact that he sent two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, to represent him there. Constantine never intended on having input to the theological discussion and it is highly doubtful that he had any real grasp of the significance of the Arian heresy anyway. He just wanted peace.

On the contrary, Sylvester's act of sending legates to the council was very controversial. The authority of these legates to speak for the Pope is in question and their signature on the decree is also in question of whether it was with the blessings of the Pope.

So, what you have here is a formulation of a very important doctrine by a Council convened not for the purpose of stamping out heresy but for the purpose of bringing an Empire to peace.

Nevertheless, the bishops did not meet due to some state of confusion as to just which doctrine was to be believed. At least 300 bishops gathered for the purpose of defining doctrine in the face of the Arian heresy. All but two of the bishops agreed to the formulation of faith put forth in the Nicene Creed, believing that it inerrantly summarized the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church, specifically the relation and nature of the Persons of the Trinity. The two (Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais), who did not agree were summarily exiled and anathematized along with Arius.

Of course they met due to some state of confusion. That is why peace between the bishops were needed in the first place! The council did not start with 298 bishops in agreement and 2 opposed. Conflicting doctrine was debated until they came up with the creed that 298 bishops can say Aye to. With the Pope absent. Policies being established this way - like the Easter controversy - sure. But not basic doctrine as important as the relationship between Father and Son.

That right there - the substance of Father and Son - that's something that Revelation would have been really necessary.

It was a hearing and the Council gave Arius his day in court, if you will. There were plenty of bishops who arrived that had little if any knowledge of the theological arguments of Arius. It was only proper that they be laid out on the table if an honest assessment was to be made of their continuity with the Apostolic faith.

Okay. I'll give you that. Although, this is not what the Catholic School teach. The historical account of the Council uses the words Theological Debate when it came to the relationship between the Father and the Son among all the other creeds that were discussed at council.

As I have already stated, the Pope had two representatives at the Council. They assisted the president, Hosius of Cordova, in overseeing the Council.

Authority of legates to speak for the Pope in matters of establishment of doctrine is in question.

You need to read about the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts and then tell me that there's no considering of opinions. In any event, epistles of the New Testament were not the product of a Council so we can hardly compare the two. Even today, if we have a rogue bishop whose teachings do not comport with the Apostolic faith, the Pope has the authority to chastise and excommunicate them without calling a Council. In addition to the Arius matter, there were twenty canons that were approved at the Council of Nicea and I guarantee that there was much discussion in that regard. Nevertheless, the fact that there was discussion and debate does not negate the fact that the Church gathered to specifically define what the Church had always believed in the face of one who challenged those beliefs. And as I have pointed out there was almost perfect unanimity (298 out of 300) among the bishops which is not evidence of confusion, but rather clarity and unity of belief.

You made it sound like Arius is alone in his dissent. The bishops were all divided, hence the reason for calling them to council in the first place. And as I have stated, 298 bishops did not come into Council in agreement. Therefore, they were not in unity. They came away from Council in agreement. Whether the agreement was brought about by the Holy Spirit or purely in a temporal manner is in question.

Yes, but you must begin with the presupposition that the apostasy occurred. I don't, nor do I believe history comes close to supporting the proposition.

Then this discussion is moot. I don't know what you expected. That you'll find the words APOSTASY HAPPENED ON THIS DATE/EVENT in your history books? The Catholic Church is the expert on their own history. How else do you find "evidence of an apostasy" except to point out things in that same history and bring it up in the light of being a by-product of an apostate condition?

The LDS Church doesn't have to come into play. Can the Catholic Church possibly be in Apostasy? That question can be answered without a restoration event needing to have happened.

Edited October 3, 2012 by anatess

[Maynard]

Maynard, we can go back and forth on this one. Like I said, if you're Catholic, you'll hold to your interpretation of the events, if you're not, you'll have a different one.

The Catholic text books that my Catholic School used in teaching Church History (High School) used the word Debate. In the light of the absence of apostasy, there was no point in hearing out Arius. Those holding to Catholic Tradition know full well what Arian belief entails as far as the creed goes. Based on the outcome of the Council, we can deduce that Arius was heretic, therefore, those in authority can hammer out the creed without Arian input... if those in authority were clear in what the true doctrine of the mystery of the Trinity really entailed.

I really wish that we were sitting with you when discussing this topic. It is difficult sometimes to reply quickly and with words accurately enough to be explained without misunderstanding. The term debate is used in many accurate histories of the council of Nicea. The bishops did debate. They were unified in the truth of the apostolic teaching on the nature of God. However, because one can say things that sound heretical, there must be a thorough understanding of what is meant. A great example of this is Romans 3:28, Paul can say that justification comes by faith apart from works, however this has to be seen in light of what James writes inside James chapter 2 and following and vice versa. In other words what Arius said and wrote could sound heretical but with further explanation fall under the umbrella of what is true and orthodox. Arius, for his part was resigned to defend his position. The council of Bishops, before excommunicating Arius gave him an opportunity to recant his heretical beliefs.

The council then took to the discussion about what words could be used to clearly elucidate the apostolic teachings on the nature of God. When describing what is true a group can still "debate" what words state that truth most effectively without the possibility of being misunderstood. The fact of the matter is that the Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit did an effective job of making the creed's words difficult to twist.

You make it seem as though the Bishops came into the council without an opinion of the nature of God and were swayed back and forth by arguments of Arianism and for the Trinity. I can provide several citations from those using primary sources to support this view of Nicea. Can you provide likewise for your position?

I do have a further question. You make the claim several times that, "The Catholic Church is an expert on its own history." What do you man by this? What are the implications of this statement?

[Guest]

I really wish that we were sitting with you when discussing this topic. It is difficult sometimes to reply quickly and with words accurately enough to be explained without misunderstanding.

I don't think this is a good idea. English is only my 3rd language. I write it much better than I speak it. Sometimes, it takes me a while to find the English word for what I want to say. When writing, I can pause, look up the word in the dictionary, then continue writing. When speaking, I'm pressed to find a word in my head in a millisecond which usually ends up with a completely inaccurate word used here and there. My husband is used to this, so I can just spew out words and he just "gets it".

The term debate is used in many accurate histories of the council of Nicea. The bishops did debate. They were unified in the truth of the apostolic teaching on the nature of God.

No, they weren't. They were unified in the truth that Jesus is the Son of God and that He is also God. But HOW exactly that is, they are not united on. Hence, the debates on homoousis and all those 2 other ousises... (sorry, too lazy to google the actual greek terms)... where one thought won out and became the creed.

However, because one can say things that sound heretical, there must be a thorough understanding of what is meant. A great example of this is Romans 3:28, Paul can say that justification comes by faith apart from works, however this has to be seen in light of what James writes inside James chapter 2 and following and vice versa. In other words what Arius said and wrote could sound heretical but with further explanation fall under the umbrella of what is true and orthodox. Arius, for his part was resigned to defend his position. The council of Bishops, before excommunicating Arius gave him an opportunity to recant his heretical beliefs.

The council then took to the discussion about what words could be used to clearly elucidate the apostolic teachings on the nature of God. When describing what is true a group can still "debate" what words state that truth most effectively without the possibility of being misunderstood. The fact of the matter is that the Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit did an effective job of making the creed's words difficult to twist.

You make it seem as though the Bishops came into the council without an opinion of the nature of God and were swayed back and forth by arguments of Arianism and for the Trinity. I can provide several citations from those using primary sources to support this view of Nicea. Can you provide likewise for your position?

Catholic Encyclopedia should be enough of a source to show my position. It is online, I'm certain.

The Bishops came into the council with their own opinion of the nature of God. There were many opinions floating around in Council which was the substance of the theological debates.

As a Catholic, of course we believe that the decisions of the Council was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you're considering the possibility of an Apostasy, that inspiration is in question because there's no way to prove it one way or the other.

I do have a further question. You make the claim several times that, "The Catholic Church is an expert on its own history." What do you man by this? What are the implications of this statement?

The Catholic Church is an expert on its own history - meaning, there is no reason for me to believe they are in error in their version of the historical accounts, therefore, I don't need to include secular historical sources to discuss these matters of faith except for just filling out finer point details congruent to the Church's historical accounts.

Edited October 3, 2012 by anatess

[Blackmarch]

More like 2000 years, but who's quibbling. Why would the Church have to explain anything when the question has never arisen? It has always been understood that the twelve Apostles held a unique role in the Church as the foundation and that they past their authority on to the bishops. Because of the uniqueness of the Twelve, this was not an "office", if you will, to be filled. Those who walked with Christ and witnessed the resurrection were limited. There is no need for a second "foundation" once the first has been laid. This is a modern notion beginning with the Adventist movement and borrowed by the LDS and is a very recent blip on the screen of Christian history. So the Church has never given an explanation because none was ever required. That does not mean an explanation does not exist. I have just given you one.

a foundation only works if it is there. I see them as a foundation, and their works stemming from that foundation, but ultimately their works still require that foundation.

Christ lives; he can choose to walk with anyone at any time, and through the holy ghost anyone at anytime can witness him and his resurrection. No thing is impossible with God.

Also i imagine office might serve different meanings between us;

For instance to me, as intrinsicly as Christs role was to him, it was still an "office" in that christ was called to fulfill it, one that was never given to anyone else, not even the apostles. nor was the authority to fill all of Christ's role(s) handed over in all aspects either.

Perhaps its recent blip or perhaps not. I have not gone over the churches history with afine tooth comb, altho I'd find it surprising if no one has asked that question previous to the adventists.

You are asking me to believe that Christ could not forsee this happening or that he founded his Church with the full knowledge that it would utterly fail within 60 to 70 years. Now you are free to believe what ever you wish, but I do not find this in the least convincing. I know that Joseph Smith believed Christ's own Church to have failed as he prided himself on having succeeded even beyond Christ:

I havent asked you to do anything. I am not here to state what you should or shouldn't beleive. Who said it utterly failed in 60-70 years?... i've never heard anyone put such a short time period for a full falling away.

As Peter and John had recieved revelations about a falling away I'd be very surprised too if Christ had not known about such. Christ never stated to put a church on the earth that was never to be removed, that was not his mission.

"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409).

peter could have said a similar thing while he was alive. so could have moses. Only time will tell in regards to that one. Personally in regards to the quote i think he was trying to shock people into thinking a bit more. It certainly wouldnt be the first time (certainly wouldnt be the last) that God's servants have used shock value to get people moving.

I agree, they were not inept, they knew exactly what they were doing.

If you mean that they trusted implicitly on the Holy spirit as a guide, I'd agree. However many times that would mean not taking any thought for tomorrow and acting upon it as it spoke to you, and often that happens as it is needed and when it is needed.

If you mean they knew exactly how things would turn out each step of the way, I doubt it- at least none of them ever mention having recieved such a revelation (which is certainly as possible as it is not, but either assumption is just that; an assumption).

That is the LDS position, but that is all it is. The reason there were twelve Apostles is that they represented the twelve tribes of Israel. This was to be the foundation of the Church. Judas had apostasized, therefore he needed to be replaced so that there were twelve witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection upon which the Church would founded. They chose Matthias and the group of twelve was whole again as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the upper room. It was then, at Petecost, that the Church was born, having as its foundation the Twelve, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. By the very nature of the case, since we would not always have witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection, (the requirement for being an Apostle) this unique role would be impossible to continue and unncecessary. The authority given to the Apostles was passed down to the bishops. And what was to stop them from doing this? One in authority, by its very definition, has the power to grant that authority. Christ gave his authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave this authority to the bishops. It remains the authority of Christ. It is no different than the president of a government giving authority to his embassadors to enter into various agreements with other countries. They are acting with the authority of the President. The bishops are the embassadors of Christ and act with the authority of Christ.

So how would you categorize and place the apostles in that framework?

when Christ gave his authority to the apostles, christ wasn't needed anymore, and then when the apostles gave that authority to the bishops, the apostles weren't needed anymore... why hasn't that process continued down through to the priests and etc..?

Sure if someone had the authority one could give another the whole package, if they were authorized to do so, or just part of the package. How would show they were given the whole package or part of one?

So you are saying that you just don't trust the Scritpures. If we don't have some basis of truth on which we can rely then we cannot have a discussion. So you will use Scripture when it helps your position and then claim that it is inadequate when it does not support your position.

So the Scriptures are either incomplete or just plain wrong on this count. And all because they do not agree with your preconceived notion. Okay.........

I'm working within the statements given in the posts. Whether or not we want to assume for the discussion whether how true or complete scriptures are will depend on what we want to work with and how.

Working just within the bible I can't find where the apostles say that it was to be only them, or it was to be a one time thing, nor is there evidence that their main job was done and they were no longer necessary after the day of pentecost. I also can't find indication that bishops were brought up to the same level in authority as them (Whenever the bishops are mentioned they are being given orders, and its never either same-level council or bishops giving orders to the apostles, or if it was then someone forgot to include the bishops dialogue with the apostles). Nor can i find them giving bishops the exact same authority and calling the apostles had. At least i cannot find such things by appealing solely to the bible.

Yes, for such a foundational belief I have never seen such a wide array of views on how this actually came about. For some Mormons the apostasy occurred imediately upon the death of the last Apostle. For others it was more gradual.

Theres a wide array because its not a foundational belief. God doesnt require a witness of it, no more than Christians require a witness of the jewish faith and its fall to be christian. Some folks might get a witness about it for some reason but usually not, and we are left to find out for ourselves what happened... as that is history is not exactly the clearest of waters to sift through.

God might have revealed exactly how the early church fell into wickedness to some leaders but if so they havent chosen to make it churchwide announcement.

If you want the foundational belief of the LDS it is this:

God and Christ exist; they called Joseph Smith as a servant, and through him the brought forth the book of mormon, and set up their church in this time on the earth.

I suggest checking out this:

Questions on Apostacy in LDS doctrines

you might be somewhat surprised in what some leaders believed in the "

Priesthood on the earth during the apostacy?" question section.

I mostly use this for the links down in the footnotes and the source citations.

In order to agree with your point one first has to agree that the BoM is true. You are correct, the BoM did not come from any church, it came from a man (or men depending on whose story one wishes to believe) who made a claim that he received it from on high. One needs to decide if his claim was credible. You find it credible, I find it incredible.

Indeed, incredible doesnt even start to describe it (i also find it incredible. But when you experience the incredible, even the incredible becomes credible). And yes the claims came from a man.. So said the egyptians, so said the phillistines, so said the jews, and so said the romans. Would they be totally incorrect in their assertion? They would not, Nevertheless, men ascended and descended from heaven, seas were parted, storms were calmed, fire was sent, and even God himself came and wrote upon stone.

Yes it is incredible, but then even the incredible is but a small thing for one such as God.

Isn't that how it is with anything of faith? Faith comes first, then the signs.

[X33ad]

Can an lds prove from anti-nicene fathers, pre edict of Milan writings lds beliefs

I can prove the catholic church

[pam]

But then again this thread is about Christian beliefs and is geared for those not of the LDS faith.

[Guest]

Can an lds prove from anti-nicene fathers, pre edict of Milan writings lds beliefs

I can prove the catholic church

Prove?

As a person who grew up Catholic, I know that PROOF is not in Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching, just like LDS teaching is founded on FAITH.

[Jason_J]

Can an lds prove from anti-nicene fathers, pre edict of Milan writings lds beliefs

I can prove the catholic church

Start here for a taste:

Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, by Barry Bickmore.

[X33ad]

*

Hermas

"[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’" (The Shepherd*3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).*

*

Clement of Alexandria

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies*7:12 [A.D. 208]).*

*

Origen

"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer*11 [A.D. 233]).*

*

Cyprian of Carthage

"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy" (Letters*56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).*

[X33ad]

Then to Jason I dismiss the lds faith because Christ came to fulfill the scriptures (law) not abolish them as stated in. Matt 5:17-20

And Judism is a monothesist religion along with historical Christianity where the lds is polytheist

Also the great aposticy I need a date, (which I can't find)

Also Matt 16:18 says the gates of hell will never prevail against his church so the aposticy theory controdicts scripture

[X33ad]

Anna

Faith is built on historical facts and reason, just as I can have faith George Washington was the first president I can have greater faith Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again

[X33ad]

We all know bible alone isn't in the bible so what ever lds beliefs you have please back them up with pre edict of Milan extra biblical writings

[estradling75]

For someone that claimed in their introduction to be interested in learning more about the LDS faith... You sure don't really seem like it X33ad.

Simple fact... What we think of as historical proof can very well be wrong... And when it come to the Facts, Proofs, and Truths about God... Well there is one thing the Bible show quite clearly is that God will reveal himself to those that seek him. Now you can choose to put your faith in whatever 'facts' you wish to label as such from the historical record... But the LDS position is to pray and ask God directly... So trying to pigeon-hole us down to a method of your choosing simply is not going to work.

[estradling75]

For someone that claimed in their introduction to be interested in learning more about the LDS faith... You sure don't really seem like it X33ad.

Simple fact... What we think of as historical proof can very well be wrong... And when it come to the Facts, Proofs, and Truths about God... Well there is one thing the Bible show quite clearly is that God will reveal himself to those that seek him. Now you can choose to put your faith in whatever 'facts' you wish to label as such from the historical record... But the LDS position is to pray and ask God directly... So trying to pigeon-hole us down to a method of your choosing simply is not going to work.

[Jason_J]

Then to Jason I dismiss the lds faith because Christ came to fulfill the scriptures (law) not abolish them as stated in. Matt 5:17-20

Yes, Latter-day Saints agree with that.

And Judism is a monothesist religion along with historical Christianity where the lds is polytheist

Judaism would regard "historical Christianity", i.e. the Trinity, as polytheistic. You have three distinct divine Persons, that's polytheism (or so they would say).

Also the great aposticy I need a date, (which I can't find)

I'll give you a date right after you give me the exact date that Jesus was born, the date the New Testament Church was established, a date when Adam and Eve fell in the Garden, and...I think you get the point.

There was no more apostolic authority when the last apostle died. Bishops are not apostles. Bishops are bishops, apostles are apostles.

Also Matt 16:18 says the gates of hell will never prevail against his church so the aposticy theory controdicts scripture

No, it doesn't. Jesus Christ died, and Resurrected. Did the gates of hades prevail against Him? Similarly (since, you know, the Church is the Body of Christ), the Church can "die" and be "resurrected", by Christ Himself, and the gates of hades did not prevail.

[Jason_J]

We all know bible alone isn't in the bible so what ever lds beliefs you have please back them up with pre edict of Milan extra biblical writings

I already posted a link to a book. You should read it.