SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id169.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id171.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id172.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id173.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id174.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id175.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="7"><U><B>7</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id176.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>8</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id177.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id178.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>10</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id179.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>11</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id180.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id181.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 7: CONCLUSION</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION</div> <div> <A HREF="id166.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION"><U><B>INTRODUCTION</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id169.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>Chapter 1: Did the Early Christian Church Fall into Apostasy in the First Century?</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>Chapter 2: Specific Biblical Arguments by Catholic Anti-Mormons Against the Apostasy</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id171.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>Chapter 3: Was Peter the First Pope and First Bishop of Rome? </B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id172.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>Chapter 4: Who was the Head of the Early Church after the Ascension of Christ?</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id173.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>Chapter 5: Did the Bishop of Rome Inherit a Monarchical Authority over all the Church from Peter?</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id174.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>Chapter 6: Roman Catholic Historical Arguments</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id175.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="7"><U><B>Chapter 7: Did the Bishop of Rome Call, Preside and Confirm the Earliest Ecumenical & General Councils?</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id176.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>Chapter 8: The Council of Constance (1414-1418)</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id177.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>Chapter 9: Pope Saint Gregory the Great and the Title, "Universal Bishop"</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id178.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>Chapter 10: The Catholic Reliance Upon Forgeries for "Proof"</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id179.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>Chapter 11: The Conflict Between the Charismatic and Ecclesiastical Groups</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id180.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>Chapter 12: The Protestant's Dilemma</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id181.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: CONCLUSION"><U><B>CONCLUSION</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U><B>e-mail me!</B></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div>  <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp xxx-xxxiii. MORMONISM: Section 7, Introduction. All rights reserved.]</B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>INTRODUCTION</B></div> <bR> <div>      The Apostasy can be described as the first century earthly church losing its genuine authority. This loss of authority resulted in the loss of its status as the Bride of Christ. It is important to emphasize what was lost was the <I>authority</I> to act in God's name, not the teachings,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT> not the central doctrines. </div> <div>      The “Apostasy” is different from an “apostasy:” </div> <bR> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The “Apostasy” - refers to the entire Church or institution losing its status and genuine authority,</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">An “apostasy” - refers to individuals or groups losing their status and authority from the authoritative Church.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >2</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The primary reason for the Apostasy of the first century church was due to the unfortunate failure of passing the disciples' apostolic authority onto successors.  When the apostles died, the church's status as the Bride of Christ died as well. It is doubtful the presence and growth of false teachings played any part for this loss of status. In actuality, the loss of the apostles by persecution and the later conflict between them and the ecclesiastical leaders over individual churches were the primary contributors to the Apostasy.</div> <div>      Many times, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints take the reality of the Apostasy for granted. Many Mormons are usually aware of the corruption of the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church and of the unreliability of their “apostolic succession.” We are usually aware of the situation of the papacy of having three popes at once that was chosen by the same group of cardinals and of the sheer wickedness of numerous popes who were guilty of crimes such as murder, rape, incest, sodomy, simony, and so forth.</div> <div>      We are often lulled into a false sense of confidence when we know a couple of passages in the Bible that mention the Apostasy and because the majority of Roman Catholics are not familiar with the Bible at all. As a consequence, we usually put studies into the Apostasy on the back burner and concentrate on other doctrinal issues that we usually encounter from Protestant anti-Mormons.</div> <div>      Roman Catholic apologists vehemently claim the Apostasy never happened and use dozens of scriptural and historical passages supporting their assertion. They can easily stump members who haven't studied this issue as deeply as they should. While Roman Catholic apologists aren't as prominent as Protestant apologists, they are not to be underestimated. It has been my experience Roman Catholic Apologists are much more knowledgeable and skilled than nearly every Protestant apologist I've encountered. They're also much more credible. The main reason for this is Protestantism's two foundational beliefs, <I>sola scriptura</I> and <I>sola fide</I>, can't be justified scripturally or historically. </div> <div>      Roman Catholic apologists claim an examination of the Bible and the writings of the early Church Fathers prove the church never fell into apostasy. If this is the case, they continue, it is only the Roman Catholic Church that is the genuine church of Jesus Christ. </div> <div>      Why then must it be the Roman Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox churches? After all, Eastern Orthodoxy has an equal and probably better claim to being the genuine church. What then does this mean specifically?</div> <div>      It means the Roman Catholic Church is the true church if:</div> <bR> <div> 1. The first century church never apostatized,</div> <div> 2. The bishops of individual first century congregations inherited the apostle's apostolic authority over the entire Church as a whole,</div> <div> 3. Peter was the first bishop of Rome,</div> <div> 4. Peter had monarchical supremacy over the entire Church,</div> <div> 5. The bishop of Rome inherited Peter's monarchical supremacy over the entire Church.</div> <bR> <div>      All of these five criteria need to be proven true in order to accept the claim the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. The loss of a single one is sufficient to show the Roman Catholic Church cannot be the true church of Jesus Christ. For example:</div> <bR> <div> If #1 is false, the Apostasy took place - the RCC is not the true church.</div> <div> If #2 is false, individual bishops can never assume the apostles' overall authority - the RCC is not the true church.</div> <div> If #3 is false, Peter then never held ecclesiastical authority over an individual congregation. He thus never held a position that could be filled by a successor bishop - the RCC is not the true church.</div> <div> If #4 is false, Peter then didn't have the position of authority that could be inherited by another - the RCC is not the true church.</div> <div> If #5 is false - the RCC is not the true church.</div> <bR> <div>      The more one studies the Bible and early Christianity, the less one sees what Roman Catholic apologists claim exists. There is no indication of the bishop of Rome solely inheriting a monarchical supremacy from Peter over the entire Christian church. There is no proof that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. There is no proof that the other bishops of the church recognized the bishop of Rome having a monarchical authority over them. The claim the bishop of Rome was always recognized as the supreme head of the Christian church from as early as the second century can't be supported by an honest examination of the documents.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >3</FONT></div> <div>      Roman Catholic apologists' main advantage is the general ignorance among the Mormons and the public in general, concerning early Christian history. This emboldens them, resulting in outlandish claims that can't be supported by an honest examination of the sources.</div> <div>      We need to familiarize ourselves with the Bible and the early historical writings of Christianity, and find out which are authentic and which are later forgeries designed to bolster the claim of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., the Donation of Constantine, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, Pseudo-Cyril or the manuscripts produced by the school of forgers under Pope Gregory VII, etc.). Knowledge is power. Roman Catholic apologists<B> </B>know this and so should we. </div> <div>      It is difficult to disprove Roman Catholic anti-Mormons when they use historical documents when claiming the bishop of Rome was a monarchical bishop<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT> over all of Christianity because nearly all Mormons have never taken the time to read and study the writings of the Church Fathers. This ignorance causes most to just accept them at their word instead of going through the trouble of examining the referred documents because it is very time-consuming. A common mistake people make is even when they examine the references used, they do not examine all the writings of that writer to see what his views are concerning a term or the subject mentioned. </div> <div>      As with any topic, one must not rely solely upon references used by one side but must also examine the references of others who believe the opposite. It is by weighing both sides that one comes to a judgment of whom more accurately portrays the topic.</div> <div>      I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic home. I was an altar boy, taught catechism to young children and frequently gave the First Reading in our Parish. I was content with my faith and had no desire to change. I left Catholicism and joined Mormonism not because I was dissatisfied with Catholicism. I didn't leave it because I found errors in its teachings or practice. Neither did I leave it for social or emotional reasons. No one made me or could make me abandon the faith I was raised in. How then, could an extremely faithful and active Catholic become Mormon almost overnight? <B>This momentous change occurred because God answered my sincere and honest prayer</B>. I asked him if the Book of Mormon was true and the Holy Ghost gave me an undeniable affirmative answer. This divine revelation shocked me to the core (since I didn't expect, want or imagine the Book of Mormon to be true), and left an imprint on my being I couldn't block out. I was dumbfounded. Coming to grips with God's answer, I resolved to do what he wanted. I had the impression God was talking to me and saying, “<I>Yes. It's true. What are you going to do now that you know it's true?</I>” I decided to join the church and have never looked back.</div> <div>      I have made an effort to minimize criticism of other churches in the MORMONISM Series. Unfortunately, the topic of this section makes it impossible for such an approach. I have nothing against the Catholic Church,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >5</FONT> that exists in our century but there is no way to avoid putting it in a bad light in reference to this topic. If I sound anti-Catholic please understand that I am not. I will just deal with the facts and not resort to any low rhetoric that is common in anti-Catholic publications. The reader will also notice that the entire focus of this section is on the Apostasy and authority issues and not on various doctrinal “errors” Protestants use against Roman Catholicism.</div> <div>      The biblical quotations given in chapter 1 can equally be applied to both the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox churches since both groups deny an Apostasy in the first century and have traditions that date back to the second century. Because the Roman Catholics are more vocal against us, the historical arguments presented in this section will be on the basis of refuting the claims of Roman Catholicism and won't be effective against Eastern Orthodoxy since the refutation of the Roman Catholic claim of papal supremacy will give support to the Eastern Orthodox's claim that the See of Rome was the one who departed from the Catholic faith.</div> <div>      I hope all Latter-day Saints everywhere will familiarize themselves with the Scriptures and with the arguments of our critics and also know how to refute them when encountered. I hope that I have been able to contribute to the advancement of all honest people, both members and non-members who want to know the truth about the Apostasy.</div> <div>      This section will prove a careful examination of the Bible and earliest Christian writings support the LDS claim of universal apostasy.</div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES]:</B></div> <bR> <div> 1 To be sure, many “plain and precious things” were taken from the biblical texts (1 Ne 13:24-42; Mos 1:41) but their removal didn't completely remove from the Bible the original teachings necessary for salvation, merely made it much more difficult for the reader to understand God's will. The arrival of the Book of Mormon and the other Latter-day Scriptures made Christ's Gospel much more clear to those who previously only had the Holy Bible. In addition,  the advent of modern biblical aides have assisted the Christian in understanding the Gospel and in solidifying the actual message of the Scriptures. Furthermore, books that identify and group the Bible's doctrinal teachings, such as the MORMONISM Series, also assists the Christian in understanding Christ's full and precious Gospel.</div> <div> 2 It is also important to point out heresy and apostasy doesn't mean the same thing. Heresy is to believe or teach something that is wrong, whereas apostasy is to reject Truth and fight against it. Apostasy is an end in and of itself while heresy can <I>lead to</I> apostasy. To subscribe to false doctrine is heresy (a belief); to fight against the Church or Truth is apostasy (an action). This makes apostasy more serious than any heresy. Heresies occur in every church in every era but apostasy is a complete cutting off of authority and legitimacy. Transgressions normally don't fall under apostasy or heresy but are often accompanied by either or both. </div> <div> 3 THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). pp. 34-36.</div> <div> 4 A monarchical bishop is a leader acting like a medieval monarch or king whose word is law and can't be contravened by anyone. The concept is represented by a pyramid, with the monarchical bishop at the top having all of the clergy and laity below him, in various structures. This concept is contrasted with the collegiate bishops who are all equal, but have one whom they view as their president, who is first among equals. The Roman Catholic Church teaches Peter was a monarchical bishop over the entire church and he passed on his authority to the bishops of Rome who are the new monarchical bishops over all of Christianity.</div> <div> 5 The term “Catholic Church” normally applies to the general Catholic body before it split into the Roman and Greek Catholic Churches. Because of the nature of this section, when I say Catholic Church, I have reference to the Roman Catholics and not the Greek Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox Churches since the Roman Catholics are the most vocal claimants of being the true church on the basis of divine authority and the denial of an apostasy.</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>