Talk:Great Apostasy/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Order 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Roman Catholocism and Orthodox Christianity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV and this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Overview problem

message: 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)
thread_title: Gnostic comparison

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. There's definite bias and somewhat unprofessional phrasing throughout the "Reformed Viewpoint" section134.82.97.14 03:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for informal review. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anglicanism - a middle way

message: "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)
thread_title: Are there any objections to changing title of "Roman Catholocism and Orthodox Christianity"