Talk:Great Apostasy/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This started as a strong LDS POV advocacy; I think I may have just "balanced" it by adding a strong dose of my own POV towards the end. Help, corrections or additions are sought and welcomed; I'll try think of ways to balance it further as well. Thanks. Wesley

I suspect the article was originally created to provide a definition to link to from the LDS page. I too have been concerned that it was far too narrow, so I'm glad you have done some work on broadening it. User:Quintessent:Q

Q's suspicion is correct. It was one of my first contributions and I had no ID at the time. No intent to be NPOV just merely to get the article going. Thanks to you and clutch for helping to broaden it out. Had I a better understanding of naming conventions at the time, I likely would have designated the page "Great Apostasy (LDS/Mormon)" but maybe no need to creat separate page at this point. BoNoMoJo

JW's also believe in the Great Apostacy, but have a slightly different take on it (since they don't see the Mormon priesthood as valid). The article was so strongly based on the LDS point of view, I was relucant to leap in and NPOV it; it looked like a lot of work. --Clutch 18:54 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Well, why don't you just add a separate paragraph somewhere after the LDS one that describes how the JW take on it is similar, and how it is different. Maybe this will work and come out half-way neutral if we just cover the different angles without having wikipedia advocate any of them? It may be good to have a very short introductory paragraph that covers whatever most or all have in common, or just describes the topic in a very general way, then subheadings for the different viewpoints with more details. What do you think? Wesley

That is exactly what I hope for. I don't have time today to do it, but I see we agree on the general form this article should take. Really, the whole concept of a Great Apostasy belongs to the Protestant Reformation as a whole, and it's offspring, and that should be expressed primarily. Once the commonalities are put at the front, the LDS view of it should fit in a fairly small paragraph, possibly in the same paragraph that describes, in a sentence or two, the JW's take on it. --Clutch 21:08 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I've added a short introductory paragraph. There are probably more commonalities; I just didn't want to dig into the long LDS paragraph. Feel free to expand, reorganize, add the JW take, etc. This is still a work in progress. Wesley

Why was "Christian tradition" changed to "mainstream Christianity"? Just wondering... Wesley

Wesley please see my full post on Talk:Christianity. I repost part of it here to explain the change: BoNoMoJo 04:05 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

...The use of history or tradition without qualification is controversial...LDS is based on the Christianity of "history" (or "tradition" for that matter): LDS trace their religion to every period (from Adam to the present) when God's church or people were present on the earth. LDS, for example, maintain that God's people also worshipped in ancient America around 2000 BC to 600 AD and their record is the Book of Mormon. LDS also await the scriptural records of other yet unrevealed peoples in other parts of the world. Just because it isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's not a part of history or tradition.

I'm not sure which post you're referring to on Talk:Christianity; must have been under a different username. I can see that an unqualified reference to "tradition" may be controversial, but history... if the LDS believes they're in line with the early church up until the 3rd or 4th century, and the ancient Americans up until around 600AD, then by their own account they are not part of history between 600AD and sometime in the 1800s when Joseph Smith came to prominence. The religion generally referred to as "Christianity" does have a history that includes that time frame. Wesley 16:52 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

True, Christian history includes the time period you referred to above, but now then you have qualified what part of history to which you are referring. Neither "Christian history" nor "Christian tradition" should be used without qualification when referring to either mainstream or minority groups. Otherwise, the usage will improperly exlude/include various Christian groups as was the case with the unedited phrase which started this dialogue. Further, even if the assumption that LDS make no claim to a presence of members for that time on earth, what about LDS members in heaven during that time? Is there absolutely no LDS-Christian history for that time period? For example, Jesus, Peter, etc. (from whom LDS claim their authority) were some where during that time... You can find my quote on Talk:Christianity with the ole' find function of Internet Explorer. BoNoMoJo 18:05 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

An interesting aside, and maybe beyond the scope of this article is the account in the Book of Mormon of Christian truth and authority lasting until around 400 AD in the Americas. Q

Ok, I finally found the post you were talking about. Glad you've started signing. :-) I'll briefly restate that I think 'recorded history' is a reasonable definition of history to use, that shouldn't be inherently biased. There's a written historical record of what people calling themselves Christians believed on various subjects down through the centuries. As for what Jesus or Peter believed in this timeframe, I heartily agree personally that they were somewhere. You and I can disagree about what they thought and said in this time with nothing to back up either of us aside from whose visions we choose to trust. Wesley 22:20 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

There are some arguments (maybe trifling or petty) that could be made against 'recorded history' too but it seems to be a fair enough qualification. Without too much thought to it I don't feel particularly strong against that usage. BoNoMoJo 23:07 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

The text of the article had a query asking for a Reformation perspective from the Lutherans and Calvinists. I have done my best to supply it. It may well have POV problems; please bear in mind that I have not been one quarter as vehement as folks were back then. --- User:Ihcoyc

I was the one that put that in. Thanks for stepping in and filling up the breach! --Clutch 10:20 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I strongly object to the deletion of the following text:

However, accounts of martyred Christian soldiers from the 200s suggest that the original church may not have been as anti-militarist as Ellul supposes. Ignatius of Antioch's letters from the 100s suggest that it was anything but anarchist.

A prominent theme of most of Ignatius' writings is that every Christian should obey his bishop; it's what he is most know for. I'll look up a couple of more precise references this weekend. The church's emphasis on order can also be seen in the New Testament in the apostles' appointing seven deacons to oversee the food distribution in the book of Acts; and in many of Paul's epistles, particularly the pastoral epistles directed to Timothy and Titus. They clearly had bishops/overseers, elders/presbyters, and deacons from almost the very beginning. What evidence does Ellul offer of the early Church's anarchy?

Some early saints who were also soldiers, with links, include: the Holy Martyr Hermas (http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/may/may-31.html); The Holy Martyr Hieron and the 33 Martyrs of Melitene (http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/november/nov-07.html); Saint Mauricios, a military commander of Syrian Apameia, suffered in the year 305 under the emperor Maximian Galerius (305-311) together with his son Photinos and 70 soldiers under his command (http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/february/feb-22.html). These saints suffered because they were Christians, or because they would not sacrifice to the pagan gods when ordered to do so, but did not voluntarily cease their military service because they were Christians. All of them predate Ellul's "dramatic shift". What evidence does Ellul give that the earlier church was decidedly anti-military? Wesley 17:36 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

My impression of Jacques Ellul is that he has anarchist tendencies himself, which evidently determines his view of things. If his views are cited, in my opinion it should be as an alternative view - not the standard. If he really does think that the church was anarchistic in the beginning, in my opinion, he is a nut on that issue. Mkmcconn 19:56 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Ignatius recommended listening to ones bishop only in spiritual things. Even in anarchy, groups have leaders. The early church was definately anti-statist and didn't allow military service. Therefore Jacques Ellul was perfectly correct in stating what he did. He wrote a whole book on the anarchistic tendencies of early Christianity, which is well researched. He even quoted Ignatius. Check it out from your local library Anarchy and Christianity by Jacques Ellul. I can see why that would be an uncomfortable revelation for people who view the church as the hand-maiden of the state.

As for the military Christians, they became Christians while in the military, and didn't have the option of just dropping out. They were in it for their 20 year spell. Even today, desertion is punishable by death. It was worse back then. And when time came that they had to violate their Christian consciences by killing someone, they refused. That is why they were martyred in the first place, and why they were recorded. Ellul discusses this in detail.

--Clutch 00:12 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the point is that the word "anarchy" is not accurate. There was, and to a large extent still is a strong suspicion of state power, in the church - as you might expect especially in those times in which Christians were accused of being a threat to the Empire. Even in those traditions which strongly identify the kingdom of God with the Christian state, as Eastern Orthodoxy can be interpreted to do, there is a significant thread of counter-culture and suspicion of the state, in the monastic movement; and it is basically the same in the West. This just isn't the same thing as "anarchy". Likewise regarding the military, when the Roman army was the strongest bastion of the official religion in the Empire, and so many of the persecutors of Christians made their names as opponents of the Christians while they were generals, you would hardly expect the Christians to approve of military service. However, this is not the same thing as pacifism or anarchy. Your source is connecting the dots in a creative way, apparently in order to promote his own agenda. It's not without some credibility, but it is a position that must be maintained against a lot of evidence against it. The teaching of the church, beginning in the Scriptures, mandates submission to civil rulers, and calls them "ordinances of God"; it's for that reason that Christians generally have opposed anarchy, rather than the cynical view that whoever disagrees with anarchy "view the church as the hand-maiden of the state". That's just the point from the mainstream view: that the church is the hand-maiden of God and not of the state, and that the state also is subject to God, not equal to God or master over the Church. This is still the Christian teaching. And, it was on account of that, that Christians have expressed and still do express anti-statist views, and on a few occasions have been and still are persecuted by rulers possessing pretensions of being above or alongside of God. Mkmcconn 03:52 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Of course the early church allowed military service. If it had forbidden military service, than it would have required soldiers to drop out of the military before being baptized, and you would only find former soldiers who were Christians, not Christian Roman soldiers. If you read the accounts of early Christian soldiers, you will find that they did obey their commanders and went to battle against the Gauls and other 'barbarians', in some cases killing many of their enemies. They drew the line when they were ordered to sacrifice to the Roman gods. Read the stories of the martyrs for yourself.

Now regarding anarchy, I think I may have misunderstood what you meant. If you meant church anarchy, then Ignatius' requirement of obedience to the bishop in spiritual things still stands in opposition to church anarchy; what other sort of order would you expect within the church? If you mean civil anarchy, how is this different from anti-statism? On this point I think I largely agree with Mkmcconn's observations. I'll see if I can find time to look at the book, but it sounds like it's a revisionist view at odds with the primary historical sources. Wesley 19:24 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I have a couple issues regarding the Latter-Day Saints section as it stands right now, particularly with the way it presents history. I don't mind the article presenting the LDS view when it's labeled as such, but right now it seems to take for granted a number of events as facts that, well, differ from how I and I think a number of others see that period of history. First, those who argued in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity believed that they were defending and existing doctrine, and that Arius' doctrine was the new innovation that should be rejected. Thus, to say that the First Ecumenical Council adopted the doctrine is to present the Arian position as historically factual; that's how I read the article at present. Second, regarding the persecutions, it seems clear from most of the accounts of martyrdoms that the Roman authorities didn't care much about Christian theology so long as they would still offer sacrifices to the Roman gods. They made no attempt to get Christians to compromise, other than to persuade them to offer these sacrifices, or at least that's how the martyrologies that I've read seem to present it. When the Romans wanted to flush all the Christians out of a city, they would just require everyone in town to register and offer sacrifices at a specific time, so they could more easily identify the Christians and arrest or kill them.

I see that the same concern regarding how the Trinity and the First Council of Nicaea is discussed also applies to the Adventist section. I'm uncertain of exactly how the article should be changed to reflect the two rather different views of what happened. Any suggestions? Wesley 21:35 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Which denominations use this actual term? Or are we just coining a term to cover a range of interpretations? - which we should not do. My concern is raised because this page is being used as justification on the Christianity article but nowhere off Wikipedia can I find anyone using this definition. Rmhermen 14:58 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's a surprise, if this very term can't be found off Wikipedia. It's practically the central creed of some groups, that there has been at one time a "Great Apostasy". The Mormons and Millerites use this precise phrase repeatedly in their literature. Dispensationalists and some other groups more often use the phrase to refer to the future, coming "great apostasy" - but if it's used to speak of Roman Catholic history, the terminology is not confusing. Mkmcconn 16:04 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can find Mormon, anti-Mormon and future-related sites refering to this. What I can't find is what our definition says: that this is the name of a common belief in most Protestant denominations. Rmhermen 17:10 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The phrase "great apostasy" appears in the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible, in the notes of Junius on Revelations (which replace the original Whittington notes from earlier editions starting with this one.) It does not appear to be used as a specific title, though it is a handy name for the phenomenon.

I've found a number of sites that use the phrase within the framework of general (usu. fundamentalist - Calvinist) Protestantism, inc.

Not at all sure that these sites represent the views of major denominations, though.

-- IHCOYC 18:51 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The first represents the future apostasy (or current apostasy) school. I can't identify the second. The third claims that he is an independent. I can find lots of these sort of links but I can't find any that identify this title with any denomination. Rmhermen 19:05 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is there another name for this belief that's more widely used? Or do most denominations not have a specific word or phrase they use to refer to it? If the latter is true, then perhaps "Great Apostasy" is as good as any? Or would you suggest a different title to talk about it? Wesley 19:45 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Most of the non-Mormon Protestants who keep the notion of the Great Apostasy alive seem to be independent and small fundamentalist churches. Some seem to have made the independence of individual congregations without any hierarchical structure above the local pastor/bishop/elders an article of faith in their theology of the church. Others may just not have many followers. -- IHCOYC 20:04 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The article currently claims that some form of this notion is shared among Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans and Episcopalians, as well as by Anabaptists. These are not all independent, small fundamentalist churches. Is the article that far off the mark? Wesley 21:48 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's only off the mark in that allows the reader to leave with the impression that all non-Catholic groups use this term in the same way - and obviously, that's a false impression. Mkmcconn 01:16 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My concern is that this is a "religiously" charged word coined or co-opted by certain groups. It needs to be a more neutral term. It is the same problem I have with the only Wikipedia article on Lord's Supper/communion residing at Eucharist. I know people who would never read that article because the Eucharist is still considered a heresy. And so they will not find any information on the subject. I am afraid although not certain that this title has the same flaw. Rmhermen 22:13 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a more neutral title? Regarding the Eucharist article, it isn't the only one; there's also The Last Supper, The Lord's Supper and Communion. But no one should read a Wikipedia article on a religious topic and expect it to be in perfect conformance with their or their denomination's point of view. Wesley 15:54 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I did miss the Last Supper article. However my point is still good in that only the Eucharist article actually says anything about the sacrament. The others aren't much more than redirects. But that is for a different talk page. Rmhermen 18:03 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Apostasy is a stub. I'd have no objection to most of the text here moving there, and either make this one a redirect, or keeping only the specialised, Mormon material here; whatever the group mind says. -- IHCOYC 01:08 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Have to think about this... Great Apostasy seems to be talking about something done by the entire church, or the entire leadership of the church, whereas apostasy is usually something done by an individual or perhaps a very specific group. Wesley 15:54 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I searched some e-texts of works by Luther and Calvin, and did not find the "Great Apostasy" phrase used as a specific name. Translations may differ. I suspect that the phrase was in fact devised by the Mormons, and picked up by U.S. fundamentalist Christians who heard it there. It is a convenient label for the belief, however. There probably should be an article about what the Reformers had to say, but moving it to Pope or Antichrist seems somewhat offbeat, and a title like "Reformation reactions against mediaeval church practices" is an unwieldy title for any article. There does seem to be a case for leaving all of this stuff here even if the label is much more recent than the belief itself. -- IHCOYC 16:23 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like the article's structure as it stands. It is part of Mormon propaganda that Protestants have a doctrine of a "great apostasy". The article represents that Mormon view, with something like a non-combative Protestant rebuttal to the Mormon argument. Separating out the Protestant material leaves the page back at where it started, as a Mormon advocacy piece with argumentative rebuttals inserted here and there (a common Wiki practice, which in my opinion makes silly articles). Mkmcconn 16:48 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, it's false to say that Mormon's propogandize that Protestants have a doctrine of "great apostasy". The Church does not endorse that position, it doesn't encourage its members to accept that position, and individual Mormons don't claim that. But maybe the JWs endorse the position. Looking back at the history of the article, it was Clutch, a JW, who amended the article early on to state that "The Great Apostasy is a belief held by most non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christian denominations". Now whether that is a true statement of belief and whether that belief is also doctrine of respective Protestants is not clear. What I mean is, the Pre-Restorationist Protestants seem to have a belief and/or doctrine of apostasy, but it does also appear to be quite different than the Restorationists view of an apostasy-at-large. B

I won't argue about what Mormons mean by what they publish. You don't like the word, propaganda. I am not a Mormon. We understand one another. Mkmcconn 15:47 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't mind the word, propoganda. In fact I tease my wife by calling the weekly "Church News" she picks up from the mail the "Church Proganda". She says, well you ordered it. Oh well...hahaha. B

What, you expect to see NPOV articles that are also written in a consistent, smooth, readable style? Get real, this is Wikipedia! [broad wink] Wesley 17:36 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I, too, like the articles structure but not its title or first paragraph. At least we need to include in the first paragraph the fact that most of the churches discussed in the following article don't use the term "Great Apostasy". (If in fact they don't, which seems true.) Rmhermen 18:28 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Some comments below were moved here from Talk:Christianity

I'll try to avoid bringing up the logic problems raised by claiming the church was already apostate in the first century... Wesley 20:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

By logic problem, I think you mean the ambiguity that it may be read as the Church going apostate before it was formed. What I intended is similar to the Schism which is that it is (presumed as) a gradual process...also presuming that it started as early as the Church itself started to form (not after it formed)...that was the briefest way I could think to state it at the time. B

Yes... related to that is that you would then have an apostate church before the New Testament was finished being written, let alone canonized, which might call in to question the authority and trustworthiness of the New Testament. And you would have to wonder how effective the Holy Spirit was at Pentecost if the church as a whole immediately started going down the drain. But that doesn't really have anything to do with this article. Wesley 21:19 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Other Restorationists most of whom rely heavily on the Bible would seem to have a problem there, but the Mormon answer to that is something like the New Testament (or Bible for that matter) without additional revelation is not reliable. Mormons do not claim the Bible was canonized by a legitimate authority during the apostasy; they claim that the Bible was pieced together at that time by unauthorized, but (not always) well intentioned believers. For Mormons the Bible was canonized for them when they put their seal of approval on it with the proviso that it had to be interpreted correctly, that there was still missing scripture out there, that parts of it were erroneous or uninspired...this is why Joseph Smith started on a retranslation of it and presented other books like the Books of Abraham and Moses. Regarding the Spirit at Pentecost, the Mormon answer would be something like, just because some (groups of) individuals were (becoming) apostate or did not have correct beliefs did not mean that all the other followers were undeveloped, misled, unrighteous or whatever....by gradual apostasy, Mormons intended apostasy happens person by person, not that the church as a whole immediately goes down the drain. It may also be presumed in Mormonism that because the church was so young, many wannabe followers were still too unaquainted with Christianity to fully grasp all the fundamental doctrines and without legitimate leadership took Christianity to a different course than what was intended...I'm not sure Mormons would call them apostates...maybe more like Christian prospects who made a wrong turn...and that may include the majority of the followers at the time. For Mormons the distinguishing factor is always priesthood, priesthood, priesthood: wherever the full priesthood is, the Church in all its fullness is. Because Mormonism presumes apostasy was a gradual process, there may have not been a legitimate clergy/priesthood at some point to administer the affairs of the church but there could still be sincere followers who practiced the faith as much as possible without being able to participate in authorized sacraments (like baptism, communion, etc.) In Mormonism apostasy would be culminated for leadership when the last clergyman died, and apostasy would be culminated for membership when the last of the follower's practices were too far from the faith or died. In Mormonism, in one sense there was never a complete, total apostasy because some of the scriptures were always there uncorrupted, there were well intentioned followers and maybe even some additional revelation and other gifts, but in terms of loss of Priesthood (and corruption of the Church's practices), Mormonism affirmatively declares a complete and total apostasy. B

Thank you, that's helpful. If you're going to define it as all the leadership dying out, I'm sure you have a way to explain the dates provided in List of popes, List of Constantinople patriarchs, Coptic Popes, etc. Clearly such lists don't attempt to include every bishop and priest during this time frame. The continuity in their teaching and liturgy is also historically demonstrable through examination of representative writings, and seeing which books and letters were being circulated in different areas. How does Mormonism interpret such historical evidence? How do they estimate any kind of date for the Great Apostasy? Wesley 17:05 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How would you establish a date for the Great Apostasy? Can you name the year or the decade that the last clergyman died, or any other specific event? Even if it was a gradual process, there should be some event or narrow time frame you can point to and say, because of historical evidence that such and such was said, or such and such was done, the Great Apostasy was definitely complete by this time. This is the case for the other items on the chart. Wesley 17:05 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I hope you sincerely find it helpful. I fear coming off as a proselytizer, windbag, whatever, which is not my intent. The "Church" has not ever issued an official proclamation that the apostasy definitely occured by time x. I think some early Church leaders in sermons and such indicate that the apostasy in terms of leadership of the early church could have been complete as early as the death of the last of the original apostles in the 1st century. (By original, the successor apostles whose legitimate appointment is mentioned in Acts should also be included.) So in terms of the list of successors (to which you kindly linked) for Mark, Peter and Andrew, Mormons would probably say, that there were no successors to them (or other apostles either). The theory would go that: 1) neither one of those individuals would have authority alone to appoint/ordain a successor, only the apostles as a quorum could do so; and 2) the supposed successors at most could only be appointed/ordained in a lower capacity such as a bishop (which in Mormon priesthood is closer to the bottom of the ladder in priesthood hierarchy) and a bishop only has authority to lead a local congregation, not authority to appoint successor bishops, let alone higher up apostles or carry on the leadership of the church at large. For Mormons, the only relevant priesthood quorum that would matter in terms of whether an apostasy occured at the leadership level is the quorum of the apostles. Either once the majority of the quorum died (or apostasized individually), OR the last of the apostles died, the apostasy could be said to be complete. (You tell me who was the last apostle to die, I don't know...lol.) So, even if there were still a lot of bishops left, once the apostles were out of the picture, there would be no quorum or individual left to appoint successors with authority to lead the entire church (or even to appoint bishops with authority to lead local congregations). Once all the legitimately ordained bishops were out of the picture, there would not even be any legitimate local leadership. For Mormons this could easily have occured in the 1st century, although Mormonism would probably anticipate that it would take more time for grievous corruptions of the doctrines and practices to set in. So, while JWs would start the apostasy around the Nicene Creed, Mormons would say that was a culmination of what had already happened with the death of the apostles. I'm not able to get to your question about how Mormonism considers historical evidence in this regard, because I've tied up for the rest of the night. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. B

Neutral?

I think this article (particularly the sub-heading "Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy") has an evident bias.

1. Statements such as "Protestants often assume that practices that seem especially strange to them... must have been introduced after the time of Constantine. Documents from the pre-Constantine church often show otherwise." offer only a caricature of the wide spectrum of Protestant belief without documentation and then follow it by the refutation of a straw man. [In fact, many (if not most protestants) don't disparage but rather encourage fasting or holidays, particularly if they remain adiaphorous rather than compulsory. Their justification for the view is based on St. Paul's rejecting false teachers who insist on keeping days to earn God's favor (as in his epistle to the Galatians) but accepting Christians who keep days "holy unto the Lord" (as in his epistle to the Romans). The same things can be said of ascetic practices (fasting, celibacy, etc.): the Bible affirms one form as good and another as evil. Thus, this article is at least overly general because it condenses all forms of fasting (for instance) into the word "fasting" and then asserts Protestants general rejection of fasting as "strange." Compare John Piper's recent books on fasting and sacrificial living (or what we might call "semi-ascetic" living, since it's not quite monkish) for a Protestant's take.]

2. Elsewhere in the article, the Protestants' efforts at missions are said to be waged "largely without the benefit of two millennia of experience that the historic Christian faith has to offer." This article notes elsewhere that the Protestants consider *themselves* to be the "historic Christian faith," and it also mentions that some Protestants, particularly the Lutherans and Calvinists, uphold the saints of the past -- including the Church Fathers -- as righteous but flawed men. The Protestants attempt to imitate them insofar as they imitate Christ, and they weigh the church triumphant's teachings against their own understanding Bible before accepting the teachings. Thus, they would not consider themselves as neglecting the "historic Christian faith," and the judgment against them is unwarranted and biased.

3. "In response to the claim that the church's response to one heresy led to an overcorrection in the opposite direction, **it can only be admitted that this is always a real danger.**" This statement (among others) seems clearly to be written by a Roman Catholic or Orthodox apologist rather than a "neutral observer." The paragraph beginning with "Compounding this risk of overcorrection..." is likewise a defense of Catholicism/Orthodoxy and an attack on Protestantism that is not relevant to the article at hand, at least in the way it is presented here.

4. "Restricting worship to a mental exercise removes the ‘strength’ element of loving God...." As it is written, this paragraph is clearly a defense of Catholicism/Orthodoxy and an implicit attack on Protestantism, who are again caricatured. Many protestants, especially the Lutheran and Calvinists, also believe that creation is good but deny that "[t]he epitome of the action occurs in the Eucharistic sacrifice." This article is not an objective account of the matter.

5. My suggestion is that the text under sub-heading "Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy" should either be removed or re-written in a more neutral point of view. Flex 17:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know very little about this topic. Just a suggestion--we encourage people to be bold in editing. You sound like you have an idea on how to make this article better, so go for it! You'd certainly do better than me. I can't remember if you've created an account yet, so if you want to you can (I'd encourage it--it's useful), but it's not required. Yours, Meelar 20:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. It's generally considered polite to sign your talk page posts, using 4 tildes, like this ~~~~

These are good comments, in my opinion. I hope that you follow through with edits, accordingly. Mkmcconn — \

As a word of caution, though: Without a very strong rebuttal from the Catholic and Orthodox view the article is little more than a survey of anti-catholicism as it's found in various groups. The views of opponents of catholicism have been expressed frankly - even with open hostility - and, I will not say that it is always fair. In my opinion the article is rescued by a compelling catholic answer - which I don't expect to be more fair than their opponent. I doubt that it can ever be a great article. But, it has some merit in attempting to be a balanced one. Mkmcconn — 21:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

As I think I was probably the initial author of the "Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy" section, let me share some of its history. (For the record, I'm an Orthodox Christian, a convert from Protestantism.) This article began by explaining the Mormon idea of the Great Apostasy, how all of Christendom fell away from the original teachings of Jesus Christ, and remained in this state until Joseph Smith, Jr. brought the revelation he received from his visions and so forth and founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think I added a brief "rebuttal" section at that time. Later, others added reasons why the Protestants thought that the Catholics had fallen away from Christ's teachings, generally the well-known justifications for the Protestant Reformation. Many (but not all) of these critiques wind up being applied to the Orthodox as well. So, I tried to extend the "rebuttal" section to answer those claims, generally trying to match the structure of the section to the broad outline of the rest of the article as it existed at the time. It seemed better to put these answers in their own section, so that their POV could be identified, rather than intermix them in the rest of the article.

The very premise of this article is POV to begin with; it was initially proffering a Mormon POV, and was later extended to encompass the broader Protestant POV. It seems to me the only thing that salvages it is having some sort of "rebuttal" section, weak though it may be. There are probably better ways to say it, but there needs to be some explanation of why the Orthodox (and Catholics) think there has never been a "Great Apostasy" as described in the bulk of this article. I may try to answer your specific objections another time, but wanted to make sure you were aware of some background first. Wesley 21:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've read through the article for the first time in many months; with that in mind let me try to address the numbered objections. 1. Granted, the Catholic/Orthodox section presents a very broad view of Protestantism that may seem like a caricature, especially if you're particularly familiary with one slice of Protestantism. That's impossible to avoid in anything approaching this amount of space, considering there are over 30,000 denominations. Would the section really be improved by, perhaps, separately addressing the various groups of Protestants that are mentioned earlier in the article, i.e. the Mormons, Anabaptists, Anglicans, etc.? I did try to revise what it says about the general Protestant attitude towards fasting however; I hope you find that a small improvement.

2. The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura leaves them effectively without the help of the Church Fathers. They may read the Church Fathers, but they reserve the right to reject the view of any one of them or all of them if it disagrees with their personal interpretation of the scripture. Not all Protestants take sola scriptura quite to this extreme, but your description certainly appears to. The Pope himself reads the Church Fathers as well, but reserves final judgment to himself; each Protestant does the same, or else ignores the Fathers entirely since only the Bible is needed.

3. Certainly it's a defense; much of the material elsewhere in this same article is an attack. Any specific suggestions on how to improve the presentation?

4. Again, sure it lumps all Protestants together when in fact they're a very diverse bunch. Would it improve things to address different groupings separately?

I'd like the section to stay; I don't necessarily think it needs to grow to be half the size of the entire article. I'm not sure how to address your concerns without doing that, though I'm open to suggestions. Wesley 04:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Order

I've changed the order of discussion here. It seems to me that it makes more sense to discuss this in a historical framework, and thus to start out with the original reformation churches (Lutheran and Calvinist, Anabaptist, Anglican), and then go on to discuss the modern churches (Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS). Lutheran and Calvinist should come first, as this was the first theory of great apostasy, and the one which we discuss in greatest length. It should certainly come before the discussion of the Anglicans, since the latter presumes that one is already familiar with Lutheran and Calvinist ideas of the Great Apostasy. I've no opinion on whether Anabaptists or Anglicans should come first (although Anabaptists were chronologically first, so I left them in front), and no real sense of what a good order for the later churches would be. I think it's fine to keep the Catholic and Orthodox discussions last, since they do not believe in a great apostasy, so the discussion there is of a different kind from the discussions of the churches that do or did believe in a great apostasy. john k 16:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholocism and Orthodox Christianity

I felt it was necessary to expound on the reasons why I edited. The original reads as:

"They also affirm that their ecclesiastical structure and liturgical practices have their essential roots in the teachings of the first apostles, rather than being the result of radical changes introduced by the imperial government or new converts in the fourth century. Many elements of modern orthodox teachings can be traced back to the first and second centuries in the writings of those known as the "Ante-Nicene_Fathers". In these writings there is found information about the sacraments, organizational structure, and general Christian lifestyle."

They don't "affirm" anything, because they legitimately cannot. However, they can "claim" "their ecclesiastical structure... liturgical..." was similar to that of the first congregation. Just reading that first sentence over and over again further drives my belief that the entire paragraph needs to be re-written or deleted entirely as it's hopelessly innacurate and misleading.

"..ecclesiastical structure and liturgical practices have their essential roots in the teachings of the first apostles.."

Not even close. The apostles practiced communion annually (on Nisan 14), not weekly (and not on the 3rd sunday of the month in the case of Easter). They didn't know what "Stations of the Cross" were. They didn't take the communion with a mandatory right over left hand. They didn't make the sign of a cross on their chests before sitting in a pew. They can "claim", they cannot "affirm."

"rather than being the result of radical changes introduced by the imperial government or new converts in the fourth century."

That's entirely untrue as an "affirmation". As a "claim", it is false. A bit of history: Constantine defeated Maxentius in 312 at Milvian Bridge where he allegedly saw the "In hoc signo vinces", as a result he deliberately allied himself with Christianity (though he still worshipped the Roman sun god). In 313 he declared tolerance of all religions (around the same time Eusebius became the Bishop of Caesarea Palaestina). In 325 Constantine called the first Ecumenical Council with the PRIMARY INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING AN ORTHODOX Christian faith. And yes, the changes were quite "radical." For the first time ever, the various doctrines and creeds that were invented, or established as orthodox, were now not only Orthodox, but the church had a new aura of authority due in very large part to Constantine and the highly influential Eusebius. Congregations that differed in beliefs were no longer passively disregarded, or written against by the various Ante-Nicene "Fathers" (Arians/Gnostics), they were no longer even considered to be Christian. This new "Orthodoxy" along with Constantines encouragement of Christian political and military involvement was radically new to Christianity and was A COMPLETE REVERSAL of former Christian life, liturgical practice, and doctrinal beliefs.

Many elements of modern orthodox teachings can be traced back to the first and second centuries in the writings of those known as the "Ante-Nicene_Fathers". In these writings there is found information about the sacraments, organizational structure, and general Christian lifestyle.

I changed "Many elements" to just: "Elements...". The only element that I can think of that has been consistent pre/post Nicea is the use of the bible, but doctinally and liturgically they're near polar opposites. It's true you'll find information on general Christian lifestyle and teachings in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers but to infer that those teachings and lifestyles corrospond to those of "Orthodoxy" is 100% dishonest, ignorant, fiction.

Christians were not slow to shun or excommunicate wayward members of their congregations, as they are reluctant or even won't do today.
Christians refused military service at all costs. Christians that came to the truth while in military service would forsake the military, often at pain of imprisonment or even martyrdom. Same with political office. The view of military service was softened by the highly outspoken Stoic, pantheist, Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius who encouraged military service of Christians. However, Christians still spoke out against the practice they became less likely to excommunicate members of their congregations for it, though the majority remained "conciencious objectors" until Constantine. Ironically at present time, "Orthodoxy" views abstination from military service, and political involvement as blashpheme or as being "willfully neglectful of our God given duties".
Christians baptised only those who were of age enough to be aware of what being baptised actually meant. Not only this but they even refused baptism for Gladiator champions if they did not publically renounce their former way of life.
They didn't burn incense to an image of a cross, or to the Christ's mother (well, the Gnostics did in the case of Mary, those same Gnostics who were, ironically, condemned as heretics at the First Nicene Council).
They didn't prey with beads (the Rosery).
They didn't say the same prayer repeatedly.
Their leadership was a group of men (post Jesus), not one man.
The Trinity doctrine was spoken of in some form or another since Tertullian laid out a semi-coherent explanation along with his invention of the word trinitas in 200 a.d. The formula was debated, and talked about for over a century before Constantine and Eusebius affirmed its enshrinment as a centrel tenet of Orthodox faith at the First Council of Nicea (325 a.d.).

The above list is just differences in lifestyle with the notable exception of the point regarding the Trinity doctrine. Doctrine as a whole was developed post Jesus so to what degree they believed something, and why, is really beyond what I'm going after, I just cited the Trinity as the embodiment of doctrinal change on the whole from pre to post Nicea. No honest historian would try to argue against the fact that Constantine with Eusebius' influence, turned the Christian world up-side-down. Duffer 01:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are some elements that were consistent pre and post Nicaea:

church structure that was both hierarchical (bishops, priests and deacons leading) and conciliar (i.e. not one supreme pontiff).
Practice regarding military service varied. Some soldiers that became Christians remained soldiers until they were asked to offer incense to the emperor or to some Roman god, and were kicked out or martyred at that point. Same with civil service, where the issue was that serving in office required worshiping the emperor, which Christians refused to do both pre and post Nicaea. After Constantine worship of the emperor was no longer required.
Infant baptism was practiced pre Nicaea. Naturally, adults were required to profess the faith properly and repent before being baptized.
Incense was initially avoided because of its association with the Roman emperor, plus it did not lend itself well to secrecy. When these were no longer factors, Christians resumed the Jewish, biblical practice of using incense during their prayers.
Regarding praying with beads, the earliest form I know of was the knotted prayer rope St. Pachomius tought his disciples to use in fourth century Egypt. Whether it was before or after Nicaea I don't know, but it was a monastic practice, not something imperial, to help them pray.
They certainly did repeat certain prayers, following the liturgical patterns from Jewish synagogue worship, including heavy reliance on the Psalms. They also said some prayers antiphonally. Their manner of reading the scriptures in public was also borrowed from the synagogues.
Not sure, but I strongly doubt they only practiced communion once per year, given its importance. Sure you're not thinking of Pascha?
They believed the Eucharist was the body and blood of Jesus (giving rise to rumours among the Romans that they were cannibals), and that it conveyed real grace. Ignatius called it the "medicine of immortality."
Instructions regarding fasting, almsgiving, and manner of baptism are found in the Didache, and are still followed.
Finally, Constantine and Eusebius did not ensure the enshrinement of the Trinity doctrine. Constantine himself chose to be baptized by an Arian when he finally received baptism; he was more interested in the church remaining unified than in promoting a particular doctrine. The doctrine was confirmed by the over 300 bishops assembled at Nicaea, then debated for the next several decades as some emperors opposed it, one emperor tried to get rid of Christianity altogether, before it was finally reaffirmed and stayed reaffirmed after the second ecumenical council in 381. Wesley 17:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and this article

It seems to me that this article is getting sidetracked by a lot of denominational apologetics. In the first place, the whole section on Catholicism and Orthodoxy seems to be there not so much to explain the views of Catholics and Orthodox as to advocate their views. This should be avoided. On the other hand, Duffer's comments suggest apologetics in the opposite direction - an attempt to prove that there was a great apostasy. To be fair, Duffer's actual edits have not been terribly POV. But it seems to me that we might perhaps do more to explain what about the traditions of the early church fathers Catholics and Orthodox point to, and what their various opponents point to. It is rather clear - to me, at least, as an agnostic Jew - that no single denomination can claim a monopoly on the inheritance of the early church, and we ought probably to make this clear. john k 01:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would add that Duffer seems to be imputing much more radical changes to the Council of Nicea than I have ever read about. Indeed, Christianity changed a great deal between the time of the first apostles and the era of the Reformation (and Catholicism and Orthodoxy have both changed a great deal since then, as well). But Duffer's claims here seem to suggest that all (or most, at least) of those changes were a result of Nicea, which I have never heard anywhere. Certainly, the rosary (which came into being in its final form in the 13th century and is not, so far as I am aware, used by the Orthodox) cannot be blamed on the Council of Nicea. Nor can the cult of the Virgin Mary. Or the supremacy of the Pope. Or the idea of "orthodoxy" or the fact that the modern Catholic church (and mainline protestants, and so forth) are reluctant to excommunicate people. Or much else. The fact that the Catholic Church in 2005 is very different from the Christianity of the early church fathers is not terribly surprising. But claiming that this has to do in some way with the Council of Nicea, particularly, seems dubious. And claiming that any other Christian group has any better claim to the mantle is even more so. john k 01:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This entire article has always struck me as being little more than denominational apologetics. Most of it tells why Protestants and Restorationists deliberately broke away from whatever denomination they came from previously, while the Roman Catholic / Orthodox section tells why they think such a break is unwarranted. What else can be expected given the article's title? That said, I'm writing here without having looked at the article itself in many months. Wesley 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Overview problem

The overview has some significant problems. For one it seems to think that all churches desire to return to the state of the 1st Century church (not necessarily the case). Also it assumes that all church splits were as a result of a perceived 'straying' of whatever-church-it-split-from from the early church teachings. Not necessarily the case. Some churches split because of practice, not theology - i.e. the church was viewed as corrupt in practice, not necessarily deficient in theology. Anglicanism made relatively few changes in theology in its split from Catholicism; Methodism was formed from Anglicanism simply because it would not permit the Wesleys the freedom to do what they thought right. The Salvation Army was formed for similar reasons. I'm sure there are others. DJ Clayworth 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By the time of the Elizabethan settlement, the Church of England was closer in doctrine to Calvinism than it was to Catholicism, although in terms of ritual it always stayed somewhere in the middle. The idea of the Church of England as similar to Catholicism arises out of 19th century Tractarianism. john k 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that 'The concept of a great apostacy is essential to the formation of a new denomination'. Simply not the case. Many denominations are formed without any concept of a Great Apostacy. I've mentioned Methodism and the Salvation Army above. I can come up with plenty of others. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehow there also seems to be a huge section discussing Anglicanism, despite the fact that Anglicans pretty much reject the idea of a Great Apostacy. Shouldn't this be mentioned? DJ Clayworth 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time, a long time ago in the history of the church, schism or division was considered a great sin, worse than heresy. The way divisions were justified was by pointing fingers at the other side, saying it was impossible to remain in unity with some tremendous errors of theology or practice. (I agree that practices have been at issue as much as theology throughout all the church's history.) The notion of dividing "casually" while still remaining somehow mystically united with other denominations is I suspect less than 500 years old, and then arose only accidentally when the Reformers realized they weren't just reforming the Catholic Church but splitting from it, and weren't just splitting off into one new denomination but several. There are a lot of nuances to capture here. Wesley 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Though even Anglicanism (getting up there with the 500 years) couches the statements of why it split not in terms of an irredeemable apostacy but more of a 'why we can't work with them now'. The thing is the Great Apostacy is really about the concept that the 'mainline' church has irrevocably departed from the teachings of Jesus ('mainline' usually meaning 'everyone except us'). I don't believe the term predates the Reformation, and it's certainly not used to describe every split in the church that ever occurred. DJ Clayworth 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to imply that the Great Apostacy is a concept that's been around for a thousand years or so, whereas I'm pretty sure it doesn't pre-date the Reformation. It's possible that it doesn't predate Restarationism, in which case it might be only a couple of hundred years old. Which makes the first half of our overview entirely irrelevant. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the idea is that it originated with the Reformation, and is now mostly used by Fundamentalist Protestants. john k 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The term is used by the kind of people who use "cult" to include any non-trinitarian Christian group, and still aren't quite convinced that the Pope isn't Antichrist (or explicitly think that he is). It's an idea found in great prominence in Jack Chick pamphlets, and such like. john k 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic comparison

Any particular reason we don't mention that Gnostic Christians expressed similar views about the developing Church at the time? We could take a few sentences to describe the main similarities and differences between the Gnostic view and this claim about a Great Apostasy. Dan 05:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for informal review.

Much of this article, particularly the second half, is written from a highly sympathetic, and nearly first person, point of view. I ask for objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.22.101 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. There's definite bias and somewhat unprofessional phrasing throughout the "Reformed Viewpoint" section134.82.97.14 03:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would go beyond limiting that to the second half or "Reformed Viewpoint" - the whole article is a mess, nicely dividing it into 'viewpoints' has allowed for it to become a religious thought board, drawn on denominational lines, and the article has no overall coherent narrative. I think much of the article should be deleted altogether. Further editors need to consider what Wikipedia is not. Brando130 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course its a mess. Its a messy topic to begin with. "Great Apostasy" is an alternative history/created doctrine to justify the protestant denominations.209.187.72.3 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism - a middle way

This section claims "To oversimplify greatly" - it does more then that. It confuses history, fictionalizes the present, and is just wrong. Starting with the second paragraph there is almost nothing that can be salvaged. I already had cut some nonsense from the section on the second paragraph when I realized the whole thing needed to go:

The reception of the Reformation views of a general falling away from the Christian faith, by the Church of England and other churches of the Anglican and Episcopalian denomination is a historically complex subject. As a state church, the Church of England attempted to unite all the people of England in a single church. However, the English disagreed amongst themselves about the retention of various ceremonies of Roman Catholicism, and about Arminian versus Calvinist theologies.

Political issues shaped English attitudes towards Roman Catholicism. Due to Papal attacks on the legitimacy of the English monarchy, expressed via the Spanish Armada and the "Marian Persecutions " under Mary I of England, many Britons were disposed to see Roman Catholicism as a hostile authoritarian force. The Stuart monarchs, however, wished to cement political alliances--often via marriage--with Continental powers, including Roman Catholic monarchs.
To oversimplify greatly, there arose a "high church" party within the Church of England and a "low church" party allied with Puritanism. The high church party had Anglo-Catholic and Arminian tendencies, and wished to continue at least some of the pageantry of Roman Catholic ritual. The low church party was Calvinist and wished to move the Church of England in the direction of the Reformed churches. The low church party, sometimes called the Evangelical wing, was much more open to the vehement language of the Continental reformers about the Great Apostasy than was the more liturgical, high church party. Officially, churches of the Anglican persuasion teach that Rome has fallen into error. The Thirty-Nine Articles provide that:
19. Of the Church

. . .

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

21. Of the Authority of General Councils

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

(Article 21 was abrogated in 1801 by the Episcopal Church in the USA because of its reference to "Princes".)

22. Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
The Anglican churches therefore officially teach that the Roman Catholic Church has on certain issues fallen into error and incorporated some wrong teaching and practices into its worship. The stress any given Anglican will put on these teachings will depend on where that person fits into the continuum of Anglo-Catholicism versus Anglo-Protestantism. Modern efforts of reconciliation have gone a long way toward reversal of former hostilities between Anglican churches, and the Catholic and Orthodox communions.

To jump from "error" to "apostasy" is HUGE. Anglo-Proestantism - that is WP:NEO. I have never heard that expression in either historical or theological contexts. I am working on the Thirty-Nine Articles right now and I know that NO version of the Articles uses the phrase "Great Apostasy" in them. They merit no mention here. I will try to get somebody over here to add something from the Anglican perspective. The whole passage reads like WP:OR. -- SECisek 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to changing title of "Roman Catholocism and Orthodox Christianity"

"Reponses of Roman Catholocism and Orthodox Christianity" might be more suitable. Also, does anyone have any thughts as to why the "traditionalist" view is under this heading?LCP 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A Question

The article says:

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had developed from early on the idea of infallibility of the Church — that the Church may speak entirely without error in particular councils or edicts

It is true that for long the Catholic and Orthodox Churches speak about infallibility and hold that tradition is as inspired as Bible itself. But when exactly was this position really promoted and accepted? Since the 1st Ecumenical Synod? As far as I know, no. I don't think that any "Father of the Church" at that period considered his words or the words of any synod equal to words of the Bible. On the contrary, I think that this idea came centuries later, only after the solid establishment of the religious order of things and after the full development of the mystic theology, that resulted to many supernatural experiences among the monks that would be considered as revelations of the God's word equual to the Bible or even superior. Please make comments if you can shed some light on my query.--Vassilis78 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that the Bible didn't exist under that singular concept during the time of the First Ecumenical Council, it would be unusual to see someone with that viewpoint. In Orthodoxy, the Bible is the ultimate guidebook- the writings of those who came to know Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Nothing that the Church believes can contradict what the Bible says, and if an individual sees a contradiction, he's misinformed about the issue, and should attempt to understand "why" the confusion exists, and "how" it is reconciled. The Church sees itself as being guided by the Holy Spirit in the Ecumenical Councils, and the only acceptable medium through which the Bible can be understood. Again, the Bible is viewed as the superior source of revelation, but it cannot exist separate from its interpreter; it cannot exist outside of the Body which it was meant to exist within. The Orthodox Church often points out what occurs when one begins to take Holy Scripture and leave interpretation to their own whims, and cast out tradition: schismatics arise, and we arrive at the divided Body that we've come to know today, full of backwater religious movements, and individuals who justify all manner of nonsense by their interpretation.

In summary, Tradition isn't viewed as equal, but it is certainly necessary. God continued to speak through the Holy Fathers, and to shine light to the Orthodox (and Catholics) through their teachings. However, the Bible is the ultimate source of revelation, and all doctrine must be fundamentally based within it, or must not contradict it. Tradition is the lesser of two legs, but holds the Body of the Church up all the same.

Given that you've slightly misunderstood the Orthodox view, I'm not sure how to answer the rest of your question. If you could restate it with the above consideration, I can help. Also, I believe this answer applies to Catholicism as well. Everything must go back to the Bible. It's a Protestant error to assume otherwise, because the doctrines are much more developed.--C.Logan 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

Misunderstanding the Orthodox view is not a word easy-to-say, because diversity and variety of opinion, even about serious matters of faith, was not a rare phenomenon among the “Fathers of the Church” and—believe me—the case remains the same among modern theologians and clergymen.

First, allow me to disagree with your position that the Bible was formed in the 4th century. Even in the New Testament we find a clear view about the written Word of God. The accurate position is that the 4th century saw the end of a controversy about a minor part of the New Testament which corresponds to the 5% of the entire New Testament text.

Secondly, as regards of the high esteem you expressed for the Bible, I really appreciate your opinion and hope that many Orthodox share your views. But my personal experience in Greece leaded me to different conclusions. Theologians that call the Bible as the “Word of God” are characterized as “protestant-orientated.” The nowadays trendy motto among many theologians that follow the Florovsky-Romanides way of thought, who give emphasis to the theosis, the personal experience of God himself, is that “Bible is not the ‘word of God,’ but the ‘word of the word of God.’” So, it is not strange to read in several writings that since we have the theosis, we don’t really need the Bible, because one thing is to read about God, and other to experience God himself. I made an effort to find some quotations in English, so that I may show you some samples:

Therefore, only some passages were recorded in the New Testament, so that this would act as a distinct verification of the truth that the Holy Bible is only a portion of the whole Truth that was delivered by Christ to the saints, who had in turn lived that Truth in the Holy Spirit. So, whenever we regard the Holy Bible as the only source of divine Revelation, we are in fact mutilating whatever Truth and whatever Revelation God had delivered to His friends (the saints) and has been preserved within the Church.— Rev. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, fr. Hierotheos Vlachos, The Revelation of God.

The Holy Bible is a guide towards God, but this description of God in the Holy Bible has no actual similarity to God. It speaks of God, it speaks of the truth, but it is not the Truth itself. It is a guide towards the Truth and the Path, which is Christ. Because the words contained in the Holy Bible are merely symbols which contain certain meanings. These meanings are all human and they lead to God, to Christ, and nothing else.

Thus, when one simply reads the Holy Bible, he cannot properly theologize on the basis of the Holy Bible alone. If he does do that, he cannot avoid becoming a heretic, because the proper interpretation of the Holy Bible is accompanied by the experience of enlightenment or theosis. Without enlightenment or theosis, the Holy Bible cannot be interpreted correctly. Just as by simply reading a book on surgery, one cannot become a surgeon unless he takes lessons in Medical School and practices surgery near an experienced professor, thus it is with any other positive science, where one must practice in order to go from practice and experience to the verifying and determination of the theory. In other words, a theory is determined whether it is true, through empirical practice, through empirical knowledge.

In the same way, one who doesn’t approach the Holy Bible through connoisseurs, i.e., through people who have attained the same experience as the Prophets or the Apostles, who are the Fathers of the Church, cannot become certain of the truth of the Holy Bible. The basis, the foundation of this experience, is enlightenment and theosis, in other words, glorification.—Protopresbyter John S. Romanides, Patristic Theology.

To make it plain, acconding to the above well-known Orthodox theologians, Bible is the written record of the theosis as it was experienced by the prophets and others in the old times. However, what is better, to read something about the theosis, or to experience theosis yourself? What is closer to the truth, to read how others saw the truth, or to see it yourself? The answers are quite obvious.

Besides these opinions, let me give you an ample example of what I am saying:

Do the modern Orthodox theologians and clergy hold that Bible is infallible? No. BALONEY!!!
Do the modern Orthodox theologians and clergy hold that the decrees of the Ecumenical Synods are infallible? Yes. MORE BALONEY!!! For example, Ephesus II and Dordt are treated as Robber Synods, and are ignored as Dirty Politics instead of the Work of God.

I think that this is enough. However, I would appreciate your opinion on my words.

With Christian love,

--Vassilis78 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vassilis, I believe that we're having a minor problem concerning the interpretation of scholars. Perhaps you didn't choose the best quotes to reinforce your viewpoint, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough with mine. I say this because the quotations you have provided essentially reinforce what I was attempting to say (the first reinforces it entirely, as does the second, although the second is an ambiguous sample which can be seen to contradict as well, given the wording). Remember that the emphasis of my post was the the Bible is the originator of revelation, but it only one of two legs. One can not exist without the other and claim to possess "truth", but in this case, nothing given in the Tradition of the Church can contradict the Bible, but can go beyond its beyond what it does say (in contrast, saying that nothing in the Bible can contradict Tradition is either logical mishap, and is heretical, or is merely an inversion of the previous statement, in which case it is used for emphasis alone).

Concerning Biblical "infallibility", there are indeed separate opinions concerning this, but again, it's very difficult to maintain that modern Orthodox theologians deny the Bible's infallibility. Some maintain that the entire text is infallible, while many other maintain that it is only infallible when discussing items concerning morality or theological truths. I've never seen any discernible trend towards a belief in the Bible's general fallibility- again, I've only seen full infallibility, or infallibility concerning theology and morality.

Concerning the canonization of the Bible, I'll have to maintain my position. Recall that the individual books of the New Testament were written with the focus of the term "Holy Scripture" largely concerning the Old Testament, I doubt one can rely on this as a self-reference from a naturalistic viewpoint. Additionally, mind the fact that there was no universality concerning the canon at any point prior to the Synods of the 4th century, and even today there remains to be a disagreement concerning what belongs and what does not amongst the entire Christian community. In earlier times, the liturgy was performed with reading from Papal/Patriarchal or Bishopric encyclicals, and the general reading pool varied wildly amongst many areas. My point was to establish that there was no solid "Bible" to assess a superiority of revelation over until the 4th century. Indeed, many churches and Bishoprics considered certain scriptures to be of Holy value, but this consideration of scripture was not magnified until the final, concrete statements of canonization, where focus could be established to a set number of divine writings on the universal level. Many churches used a similar listing to the final "version", but at the same time many did not, as there had not yet been a final, "official" decree concerning scriptural canonicity. In essence, there is no clear way to maintain that the early centuries espoused a "Scripture over Tradition" viewpoint, or a "Tradition over Scripture" viewpoint, either, as both had been in transient stages of development. Their influence was utterly dependent upon one another, as far as I see it.

In summary, then... although it is difficult to summarize the broad response above... the Church is dependent upon the Scripture and Tradition, though Tradition cannot contradict or supercede scripture, lest it be erroneous. Scripture cannot be properly interpreted without its interpreter, the Orthodox Church. Individual interpretation often leads to error, and results in the continuation of the Protestant movement. There is a strong inter-relation between the two concepts (as we should hope there would be, but Scripture holds prominence in its authority. It cannot be usurped by any Church Father, as weighty as his writings may seem.--C.Logan 18:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

Some years ago, I asked a Greek Orthodox theologian why bishops are forbidden to get married since Bible itself says, “The bishop therefore must be… husband of one wife” (ASV). The answer I got was: “The Church made the Bible, so the Church has authority to change a rule when it is needed.” Two years ago, I discussed the same subject with a former Protestant who returned to Orthodoxy. I told him: “Isn’t God who inspired the Bible? Wow can you change something God instituted?” The answer was: “Isn’t Church the Body of Christ? If she is His Body, then when Church decides, God decides.” Similar questions one can make for the use of icons, the holy days, hesychasm, and many other things. Actually the whole matter is closely linked with the matter of canonicity. Is the Church subject to the Bible or the Bible subject to the Church? Who has greater authority? I believe that for some centuries, the “Fathers of the Church” tried to establish their doctrines on a Biblical basis, but that gradually changed.

P.S.: As for the passages I gave, these are only minor portions translated in English and available in the Internet. I have personally read the whole books in Greek, and I believe that my interpretation of them is correct. Both authors are widely respected among the Greek Orthodox people.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Church made the Bible, so the Church has authority to change a rule when it is needed."- The answer you got was wrong and misrepresents the Orthodox perspective. The Church can only interpret the Bible, not change it. Besides that, the Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is, as the gospel of John says in it's opening. The Bible is infallible on a theological and moral level, but not on a scientific level.

Aisde from the fact that "Catholocism" mispells "Catholicism", I regard this as Hate Speech directed against Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox. Worse, it is an eggregious attemt to malign Eastern Orthodoxy, poisoning the well in that it imples that Calvinism is ascriptural. I notice that whenever some Eastern Orthodox Criticism appears to ANY Calvinist Doctrine, some self-appointed cop removes it from the Wiki, and gives lame excuses for doing so.

I reccommend the withdrawal of this entire inflamatorily biased article.

"Touchstone for radicals"

It is Wikipedia usage to identify the source of neologisms and other expressions in the opening lines. I have made no change in the wording but have merely shifted one sentence forward to identify the origin of this expression.

"The term 'the Great Apostasy' is a touchstone (or shibboleth) that separates mainstream Christian churches from radicals. One useful definition of 'mainstream Christianity' in practice, is whether terms like 'the Great Apostasy' are considered acceptable or not." This new second paragraph is perfectly NPOV. It takes no stand on the acceptability of this phrase or is accuracy. It merely expresses this clear existing division between mainstream and radical churches akong this particular line. I expect that it will be suppressed, nevertheless. Wetman 18:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am not certain that all churches that have historically taught a "Great Apostasy" --- or at least, have considered Roman Catholicism apostate --- count as "radical churches." Certainly the Presbyterians are a historically Calvinist denomination, and count some of the most vehement hotheads from the period among their founders, but current Presbyterians are not outside the "mainstream churches," at least in contemporary U.S. Protestantism. -- Smerdis of Tlo:n 19:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Where does a Presbyterian church document employ the Mormon term "Great Apostasy"? Obviously Presbyterians are within the 'mainstream' in not using this term. The term may in point of fact be used as a touchstone for defining 'mainstream' My statement stands as a point of fact, though it has been suppressed.. Wetman 21:42, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's not even a question. The view expressed in the new paragraph is a point of view, and not a report of facts. Mkmcconn 21:34, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Now, that is an opinion. The term 'Great Apostasy' is not documented in any church outside the Mormons in this arcticle. Or is it? Wetman 21:42, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As far as that goes, it's a question of which came first. The idea that the Catholic Church ceased to be a Christian Church, probably sometime in the fourth century, is a very old and recurring theme - older even than protestantism. Among the Protestants, it was typical especially of the Anabaptists, who alone among the main branches of the Reformation consistently taught that Roman baptism is not Christian baptism. This idea has since been very common in every significant Unitarian movement. And, it has at one time or another infected every group convinced of congregationalism - especially the Baptists. This is the doctrine of the Great Apostasy, regardless of terminology: the real question, to get to the heart of this, is which groups deny that there ever was in the history of Christendom, a general falling away, a great apostasy. But to answer your question, yes, this specific terminology is common in the Church of Christ, the Seventh-day Adventists, and many Baptist groups; its not as though this arrangement of words is so very peculiar that it is unlikely to fall from the lips of someone who literally denies that one of the Catholic churches, regardless of their antiquity, is a Christian church - and that is the meaning of the terminology.

But the point is that the evaluation of "fringe" or "mainstream" is not an issue of fact, but of viewpoint. This is an issue that has come up in many, many articles; and it provokes an argument unnecessarily over how meaningful these terms are, or what the reference is for deciding.

Your point is already made in the article, albeit much more subtly, in showing that there are at least two senses in which anyone might speak of a general apostasy of the the Christian Church. The Lutherans, Reformed and Episcopalians may be "mainstream", but they have had, some formally, a doctrine that the Pope is the Antichrist. Some also have locally denied that Catholic or Orthodox baptism is Christian baptism. That is as far as you can go, in saying that the ancient churches at some point stopped being Christian - that there was a very big and general (Great) falling away from the Christian faith (Apostasy). Mkmcconn 22:19, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wow. I never knew that so many people were Mormon. I did a quick search on "Great Apostasy" on Google and the first two pages only showed one LDS-related link each page. The rest were a splattering of Protestant, Catholic etc. sites. Yes, even Catholic authors. One was had a link to a book (http://cultproof.cephasministry.com/apostasy.html) about the great apostasy, that was from a Protestant author, not the famous Talmage book.

Although the term is used frequently in the Mormon Church, it was not coined by them. James Talmage, the author of the book Great Apostasy, may helped with its more widespread adoption in the early 1900s, but it was certainly not coined by him or the church by any means. All you have to do is read the book to know that. I'll look for other pre-1920 references of the term and provide.

I have spoken with many minister-friends that use the term. Most of them Southern Baptist, Methodist or from one of the many the "non-denominational" evangelical denominations. For sure, its current use is not Mormon in nature. I believe the form of the current first paragraph is very POV, and should be reverted to the prior reading and its prior POV, which has more of the appearance of being factual (no attack meant - just the current reading doesn't seem neutral toward those who believe in a "great apostasy"). -Visorstuff 22:50, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would support a reversion to the previous paragraph. It seems to me that the the article needs too many rewrites to make it consistent with the new opening. That problem goes away when the direct (and probably not strictly true) identification of Mormonism with this unextraordinary phrase is removed. That strict identification is causing a problem. Mkmcconn 23:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A 'reputed' Great Apostasy is a category (often considered inflammatory) which is used by some Christian churches with an evangelical bent to reproach other Christian churches, that are perceived as having become compromised and part of a secular establishment. Compare 'Whore of Babylon.' The term first appeared in [add history of the term here].

How is that for a better first or second paragraph? Can one write an NPOV entry that doesn't identify the authors of what is patently a 'reproach'? This entry as it stands is propaganda. Dispured NPOV needs to be added, as the history pages demonstrate. If religious advocates have a concept of a balanced discussion, they need to show it here. Wetman 23:45, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

This is much worse, very frankly. There are Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who have contributed to balancing this page. No one is quite happy with it, I suppose; but personally, I think that it has proceeded in a much more cooperative direction than your proposal would allow. For example, what do you mean by "evangelical bent"? Do you think no one would have difficulty accepting "other Christian churches"? Do you read this article and not recognize that only a small minority think that having "become part of the secular establishment" is descriptive of this alleged apostasy? Furthermore, what people consider inflammatory, while being useful in instructions of ettiquette does not seem very informative in an encyclopedia, ordinarily. I do not like the word "category" here. And, as discussed earlier, I strongly doubt that such a natural arrangement of words as "great apostasy" has a history that can be responsibly traced. I advise leaving the opening paragraphs substantially unchanged. That is the least problematic part of this article. Mkmcconn 05:21, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is this a term which is used mainly in America? I was brought up in the Church of Scotland (presbyterian) and I've never heard of it. It's not part of any religious discussion I had ever heard (anywhere ever) until I looked on-line and saw it today. I don't believe that the Church of England use it. It seems silly to assume that any non-english-speaking church would use a term in english to describe something. That's why I am asking - is this something that is used only the USA? 195.153.45.54 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)