Was There a 'Great Apostasy?'

by Rev. Matthew Poetzl, O.F.M.

Free eBook:

Free eBook: Liturgical Year 2023-2024, Vol. 4

For over a century now the Catholic Church has been the particular object of attack from the spokesmen of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, popularly known as the Mormon Church. Taking for granted that the first step toward the defense of their own Church is the elimination of the Catholic Church, they hurl at us a never-ending barrage of accusations and of misrepresentations. They picture our Church as everything that Christianity should not be. The Mormon point of view is well summarized in a book entitled, "The Great Apostasy," published by one of the Mormon Apostles. It is supplemented and repeated in a variety of less pretentious publications. To this accusation and the arguments offered to support it, I now call your attention.

The accusation that the Catholic Church failed is nothing new. It did not originate with the Mormons in their 19th century appearance on the world's scene, for it had been a favorite theme with the so-called reformers of the 16th century. These Protestants contended that, although the Catholic Church started out correctly enough and remained true to its divine commission for several centuries, it later fell into evil ways, with adulterated doctrines and un-Christian practices. They declared that certain corrections and reforms were called for, each new sect offering itself as the God-given answer to the need.

Line of Thinking

The Mormons start with this line of thinking, but they go much further, by carrying the accusation to its ultimate absurdity. They insist not only that the Catholic Church failed, not only that she invented heretical doctrines and practices, not only that she became corrupt, but that she lost divine authority, lost the Christian priesthood, lost the right to be called the Church, and that, in fact, she ceased to exist. The Mormons allege that God removed the Church from the world, leaving only the outward appearance of the original reality. On this premise mere corrections or reforms were out of the question. What was needed was to start all over again.

The promoters of the 16th century "reformation" had been influenced by the existence in parts of Christendom of certain harmful conditions and contemporary practices. Their thinking was more or less centered in their own times and in the century preceding, during which the Church, with several unworthy men as popes, had had weak leadership. Judging from their writings, they had great admiration for the Church of the early centuries, holding it up as a worthy example for imitation. Not for a moment would they have accused the Church of any defection during the centuries of persecution. And as for God's closing the Church and removing it from the world, nothing could have been further from their imaginations.

Mormon Type of Accusations

Come back now to the Mormon type of accusation. A little straight and unconfused thinking is all that is needed. If God dissolved the Church and took away her authority, would He not have given some indication of what He was doing? Would He allow the Christian people to go on believing in the Church, would He allow them to die as martyrs for the Church, without warning them that there was no Church? Surely if our Lord had become displeased with the Church of His creation, if He judged it necessary to interrupt the plan and program of salvation for which He had died on the cross, and which He had promised would endure for all time, surely He would have announced the fact to His people in emphatic and unmistakable terms.

We have only to recall that God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, came among men with a human nature, that He directly established His Church, that He made it the agency to perpetuate His plan of salvation, that He selected and appointed its first officials, and that He explicitly gave authority to them and their successors for all time, authority to teach, govern, and sanctify. The place and approximate date of the founding of the Church are known; the manner of founding it is known; even our Lord's words are preserved. Yet you are asked to believe that He dis-established the Church without giving a sign to reverse what He had previously done, without a word to cancel His former promises.

Our Protestant Brethren

Let it be noted that our Protestant brethren generally have been vague about the time when the Church, according to their thesis, fell into evil ways. Some among them, to be sure, have fixed the time as the beginning of the 4th century, when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. But there is no agreement about this date, most Protestant spokesmen being content to refer the assumed lapse to an undefined period in the middle ages.

With the Mormons, on the other hand, the case is entirely different. They declare that the Church was dissolved, was closed, was taken away. This would have been a definite event, a world-rocking event, an event which would have attracted universal attention and which would have been precisely marked in time and place. When and where was this, we ask. When and where did God thunder down from heaven His mandate against the Church? If the event occurred, the Mormon theologians must find it. They must fix it in the calendar of history; they must place it in a geographical location. Nothing less will satisfy the demands of logic and scholarly honesty. So I ask: When did the disestablishment occur? Where? How? To these questions there is no answer. There never will be an answer. No date or place can be fixed, for the all-sufficient reason that there was no date or place. The history of Christianity can be searched in vain for the slightest indication that God at any time spoke out against His Church or that He withdrew His authority or that He removed the Church from the world.

The Mormon Critics

Let me propose now another and a complementary test of the Mormon claims. I ask the Mormon spokesmen to explain the existence of the present Catholic Church. If the original Church was dissolved and has not continued to the present time, then the Mormon critics must state when the now existing Catholic Church came into being. Where was it established? By what process? By whom?

Let me ask: Was the Catholic Church established in the 20th century? You must answer "No." If honest, you must say that the Church of today is the continuation of the Church which existed in the 19th century. Very well. Was the Church established in the 19th century? Read the history of that century. Study all the records you can find, even those which are most unfavorable to the Church. You can give but one answer. The Church of the 19th century was the continuance of the Church of the 18th century. Go back further, century by century. I defy the Mormon spokesmen to name any century in which the Catholic Church was established, any century other than the first. The Church of the 5th century had flowed over from the 4th; that of the 4th, from the 3rd; that of the 3rd, from the 2nd; that of the 2nd, from the 1st, from Our Lord and His Apostles.

The failure of the Mormon spokesmen to explain when, where, and how the present Catholic Church was founded exposes the fatal weakness of their accusation. It is a silent admission that the Church has had unbroken continuity through all the centuries, from the first even to the 20th. All talk about the disappearance of the original Church and the substitution therefore of a new and different Church is exposed as mere talk, as merely the invention of prejudiced minds.

A Monstrous Fabrication

The whole story is a monstrous fabrication, conjured up out of necessity. The defenders of Mormonism must eliminate the Catholic Church before inviting the world to accept their own claims of a restoration. To that end, they must declare in every way ingenuity can devise that the Catholic Church failed and came to an end. No matter if there are no facts; no matter if there is no logic; no matter if there is no support in the Scriptures or in history. The Mormon spokesmen must close their minds to everything that vitiates their claims. They must continue to repeat, over and over again in parrot-like monotony, the all important accusation, all important for them, that the original Church failed and that the present Catholic Church is an imposter.

Do you not see that the Mormon apologists indulge in backward reasoning? They do not start at the beginning; they do not study the history of early Christianity in order to learn what it was. They do not examine the record in order to draw conclusions. They start with a conclusion already formed, viz., that sometime in the early centuries the Church ceased to exist. From this conclusion, fixed in their minds as essential to their own organization, they look back into the history of early Christianity in search for something that can be labeled confirmation.

One of the strangest of the Mormon approaches to the "Great Apostasy" is that which is supposed to be based on the Scriptures. It could easily be said that this approach is the most completely devoid of merit, except that such a statement might imply that there is some merit in the other approaches. But — I ask you to judge for yourself.

The Mormon Contention

The Mormon contention is that the alleged apostasy was foreseen at the very beginning of the Christian era, and even before. Statements are quoted from the prophet, Amos, in the Old Testament, from our Lord Himself and from some of the Apostles. From our Lord is this: "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many." (Matt. 24:4 and 5)* Also this, from St. Paul: "Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition; . ." (2 Thes. 2:3) This from St. Peter: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies . . . And many shall follow their pernicious ways . . . And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you . . ." (2 Peter 2:1, 2, 3) From St. Jude: "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." (Jude 17 and 18)

The Alleged Apostasy

These texts being typical of all the others and identical in substance, there is no reason to quote further. And in so far as the alleged apostasy of the Church is concerned, the other texts are as worthless as these just quoted. Nothing added to nothing equals nothing. Please understand that this Scripture argument about the assumed failure of the Church is not offered as a fairy tale or a comic strip for the amusement of children. It is offered in all seriousness by grown up men; it is intended to be read seriously by grown up men and women.

Read the texts carefully, all of them; read the whole Bible. You cannot find one indication of an expected or foreseen failure of the Church. In many texts the Scriptures warn about false prophets and false teachers, and instruct the Christian faithful to be on their guard. The writers predicted that in spite of warnings many Christians would fall away, especially in the latter days.

Is there anything unusual in such facts? Is there anything to bring discredit upon the Church? Only remember that there were apostasies even from Christ. Immediately after He taught the doctrine of His Real Presence in the Eucharist, it is written: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (Jo. 6, 66) Then there was Judas. Did such apostasies spell the end of Christ?

Apostasies from the Church

The sum total of the Scriptural testimony on this subject is that there were apostasies in the beginning of Christianity and that there would be further apostasies in later generations, apostasies from the faith and from the Church. There is not the slightest indication of an apostasy of the Church away from Christianity. This is a simple distinction, one which should not be too difficult for a reasoning adult to make. It is the distinction between an apostasy from the Church and an apostasy by the Church. Because of the weakness of human nature and the ever presence of evil, there are always apostasies of the former type; thanks to the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, there is never an apostasy of the latter type.

Let me now call attention to Scripture texts which testify to the perpetuity of the Church and which, by that very fact, rule out even the possibility of "The Great Apostasy." If you are interested in the Old Testament, read the books of Daniel and Micheas. Both writers foresaw the coming of the Church, describing it as Our Lord's kingdom on earth, and announcing that it would stand forever, a "kingdom that shall not be destroyed."

These predictions need not be stressed, for the reason that they are less emphatic than those from the New Testament. There is the announcement of the angel to Mary, for instance, in which she was told about the coming of her Son, the Saviour of the world. The angel said: ". . . and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Lk. 1:33)

This Rock

All arguments against the perpetuity and continuity of the Church are silenced by the explicit statements of Our Lord Himself. To His chosen Apostles, He announced: ". . . and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18) Bypassing for the moment the peculiar Mormon interpretation of "this rock," which is not pertinent to the present subject, it is to be noted that our Lord's words give absolute assurance of the perpetuity of the Church. It is a promise and a guaranty that the Church would never be destroyed.

The Continuity of the Church

On another occasion He spoke these words to His Apostles: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations . . . Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." (Matt. 28:19, 20) It should be evident that our Lord was looking beyond the eleven Apostles who stood before Him. That He was addressing their successors, also, those who would follow in each generation, is evident from His reference to "all nations" and from His promise to be "with you always, even to the end of the world." His words can have but one meaning: He would be with the Apostles and their successors always, even to the end. This being so, the continuity of the Church would never be broken, not even for one day. Any other interpretation is prejudiced and wishful thinking.

Especially pertinent to the teaching of the Gospel is our Lord's promise to send the Holy Spirit to be with His Apostles and their successors. "And I will pray the Father," He said, "and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but you know him; for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you . . . the Holy Ghost . . . shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Jo. 14:16, 17, and 26) Again the meaning is unmistakably clear. Our Lord's promise was for ever. It was the divine guaranty that the Apostles and their successors "forever" would be protected by the Holy Spirit against teaching error.

The Stock Arguments of the Mormons

This leads up to another of the stock arguments of the Mormons, viz., that the Catholic Church corrupted Christianity by introducing false doctrines. Among the many subjects carefully selected for the purpose is that of baptism. Very well; let us consider baptism. According to the Mormons, baptism as commanded by our Lord could be administered by immersion only. In as much, therefore, as the Catholic Church now uses the method of pouring, that fact is heralded as conclusive proof of the defection of the Church and of its being disestablished by God.

I ask you to analyze and appraise this argument. Do you not see that it is mere speculation? It puts the Mormon critics in the very ambitious role of telling God what He should have done. They first convince themselves that the Catholic Church abandoned the only Christian and valid method of baptizing (concerning this I have something to say later). Then they announce that because of the alleged mistake God must have revoked the commission which He had given to the Church. They decide what, in their opinion, God should have done, and then they confidently proclaim to the world that He did it.

A Further Look at Baptism

Take a further look at baptism. The Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, that baptism can be validly administered in one of three forms, immersing, pouring, and sprinkling. The Mormons insist, to the contrary, that baptism can be administered by immersing only. The difference is to be resolved by consulting the constitution of Christianity as understood and taught by the Apostles and handed down by them to their successors in office. In other words, what did the Apostles of Christ think and teach about baptism?

Now ponder well this question. Who is better qualified to know the mind of the Apostles, the Catholic Church which has had continuous contact with them, generation after generation, or some one else who came onto the world's scene in the 19th century? The present priests and bishops of the Catholic Church have received from their predecessors the story of our Lord and His program of salvation. In each generation they have accepted what was handed down to them from an earlier generation. Are they not far better witnesses about what was taught in the first century than modern critics who view the scene from the outside? Even if there were no historical evidence to support the teachings of the Church, does not reason itself suggest that she is far more highly qualified to interpret her own past than those who have never been in touch with that past?

The Argument in Favor of Immersion

Having gone thus far with baptism as an illustration, let us take one further step. The argument in favor of immersion as the only valid method of baptism is based on several texts from the New Testament. First to be noted is the baptism of our Lord by St. John the Baptist. It is claimed that this was by immersion. Perhaps it was. It is significant to note, however, that the Christians of about seventy years later believed that the baptism had been by pouring. This is indicated in a painting, still preserved in the Catacomb of St. Callixtus.

A second text, widely quoted by our critics, is from St. Paul. In his Epistle to the Romans he wrote: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism unto death . . . For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Do not these words refer to the ceremony of immersing? Most certainly. They indicate that immersion was understood by St. Paul and his people. Without doubt, it was the ordinary and most commonly used method of baptizing. But the important point to be noted is that it was not the only method.

The Method of Sprinkling

In another text, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul wrote: "Let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." This latter text refers to baptism no less than the former, and it indicates the method of sprinkling. In each text St. Paul uses figurative language, drawing on the ceremony of baptism to teach a spiritual lesson. In each text he refers to something with which his readers were familiar.

Before dropping the subject of baptism it may be well to call attention to a few other pertinent facts in the Apostolic record. On Pentecost Day there were baptized in Jerusalem three thousand persons. Considering the scarcity of water in that City it is most unlikely that they could have been immersed. Again; while in prison, St. Paul preached to the jailer and his family; converted them to Christianity, and immediately baptized them. This was in the jail and in the middle of the night. Would anyone suggest that an oriental prison was equipped with a swimming pool?

I have previously pointed out that early Christians believed that our Lord had been baptized not by immersing but by pouring, as represented in a picture in the Catacomb of St. Callixtus. There are two other pictures preserved in the same Catacomb which contribute further evidence about the method of baptizing; both are from an early date, about the year 200. In the first, the minister of baptism stands on the ground. He holds his hand over the head of the catechumen, who stands in the water up to his ankles. In the second, both the minister and the catechumen are standing in the water which just covers their ankles. The minister is in the act of pouring water over the head of the catechumen, the falling water being represented by large strokes of paint.

Representations of Baptism

Such testimony is in harmony with the other records from the earliest centuries. There are many representations of baptism left on monuments of various kinds, but not one of them indicates immersion. In the mosaics of early churches, in ordinary pictures, on domestic objects such as dishes, immersion is never depicted. It is never sculptured or engraved on marble. Invariably the person being baptized is represented as standing, with his feet only in water, while water is poured on his head with the hand or a vase. Is it not strange, I ask, is it not wholly incomprehensible, if immersion were regarded as the only valid form, that all the early representations of baptism indicate the method of infusion?

The fact thus demonstrated is confirmed in the writings of the early Christian scholars. Tertullian, third century, described baptism as "a sprinkling with any kind of water." St. Cyprian, third century, wrote as follows: "No one must be afraid that the sick do not acquire the grace of the Lord because they are seen to be sprinkled or infused, since the Sacred Scriptures say through the prophet Ezekiel 'I will pour upon you clean water;' . . ."

Another most conclusive bit of evidence comes from the "Didache," or "The Teaching of the Twelve." This document contains instructions for use in the youthful Church, some among which pertain to the administration of baptism. I quote: "Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in running water; but if thou hast no running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This document comes from the end of the first century or the very beginning of the second.

Three Methods of Baptism

The undebatable truth is that three methods of baptism were recognized and used by the Apostles, as proved both from the New Testament and other documents from the early centuries. Inasmuch, therefore, as pouring is a valid method of baptizing, because it is more adaptable than immersing, because it can be used for sick persons and for children, because it can be used in all climates and under all circumstances, the Church is wholly justified in adopting it for her regular practice.

A similar complaint of the Mormons pertains to the Catholic practice of baptizing infants, this being offered as further proof of the alleged corruption of the Gospel. The Catholic Church teaches that from the very beginning she has baptized infants. The Mormon Church declares that in the beginning the Catholic Church did not baptize infants. Before examining the record, let me ask: which Church is in the better position to judge what the Catholic Church taught and practiced in the first century? Is it the Catholic Church, which has had continued and unbroken contact with the first century? Or is it the Mormon Church, which has had no contact with the first century? Answer the question for yourself.

"Unless Someone is Born Again"

Now for the record, Our Lord Himself said: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) The original Greek reads: "unless someone is born again." That these statements refer to baptism and that they contain a universal command cannot be doubted, a command applicable to adults and infants alike. (The baptism of desire as a substitute for that of water is a different subject; I mention it merely because you may think about it.)

If a question is raised about why infants need the grace of baptism, the answer is to be found in the fact of original sin. This is the unfortunate but common inheritance of all descendants of Adam and Eve, all except the Blessed Mother of our Lord, "our tainted nature's solitary boast." To infants, there is no other way of giving sanctifying grace, none other than baptism.

It is pertinent to inquire how the command by our Lord was understood by the Apostles. In other words, did they baptize infants? The record shows that on three different occasions St. Paul baptized all the members of a family. For instance: A certain woman in the City of Thyatira, Lydia by name, was converted to Christianity by St. Paul's preaching. The narrative continues: "And when she was baptized, and her household . . ." (Acts 16:15)

I have previously cited the occasion when St. Paul baptized the jailer while he was in prison. The text is most significant: "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straight-way." (Acts 16:33) On yet another occasion St. Paul testifies: "I baptised also the household of Stephanas: . . ." (1 Cor 1:16) Now I ask: Do you think that there were no young children in any one of these three homes? Answer for yourself.

Let Children Come to Me

The Mormons make much of our Lord's welcome to the children on one occasion: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14) The narrative does not state that our Lord baptized the children. Therefore, say the Mormons, children are not to be baptized. What about the chosen Apostles, I ask. Where does the Bible narrative tell about their baptism? Would the Mormons contend that they were not baptized?

The Mormons point to the fact that penance was required in connection with baptism. On Pentecost Day, for example, St. Peter said: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. . ." (Acts 2:38) Repentance can be demanded of adults only. What is the explanation? It is that St. Peter was speaking to adults only.

Here again the testimony of early Christians is significant. St. Irenaeus, second century, wrote this: "He came to save all who through Him are born again unto God: infants, and children, boys and youths, and elders." This testimony is of great value in as much as St. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp who, in turn, was a disciple of St. John, the Evangelist.

Origen, third century, wrote: "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants" . . . "and necessary to cleanse infants from the original sin."

The Pelagians

St. Augustine, fourth and fifth centuries, defended the existing practice of baptizing infants against the Pelagians, who denied the reality of original sin. He wrote: "The infants are brought to church, and if they cannot go there on their own feet, they run with the feet of others . . . let no one among you, therefore, murmur strange doctrines. This the Church always has held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end."

I have written at some length about baptism, not that it is more important than the other subjects discussed by our critics, but because it is typical of the others. The reasoning by which the Catholic practice of baptism is easily defended can be applied in defense of all the other doctrines and practices which are challenged.

The Accusation of Moral Corruption

Among the other arguments offered in support of the alleged Catholic apostasy, one or two call for special comment. There is the accusation of moral corruption, for instance. It seems that our critics have discovered that Catholic priests, bishops, and popes are human beings and that occasionally they make mistakes. The records of the few unworthy popes are especially drawn upon. That five or six out of two hundred and sixty popes have been unworthy characters seems to be undoubted. The stories of their misdeeds are frankly recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia, where they can be easily studied by the curious. But what conclusion is to be drawn? Did these popes do harm to the Church? Of course they did, much harm. Did they cause scandal? They did. But did they destroy the Church? If so, then the Church had existed unscathed up to the 9th century. Will the Mormons admit that the Church had been faithful to her divine calling for 8 centuries?

The Few Unworthy Popes

Having touched the subject of official behaviour, however, let me add a few comments. Is it not most remarkable that none of the few unworthy popes changed or contaminated the doctrines of the Church? Study their careers as closely as you wish, you will not find one doctrine that was affected by the unworthiness of their private lives. Of what other organization can a similar boast be made? Usually the officials of an organization, religious or otherwise, leave some influence behind them. Often enough, they introduce some practice or doctrine as a lasting relic by which the organization is embarrassed in later years. Not so with the unworthy popes of the Church. And for a most significant reason. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit against error, a protection which saves her even when popes fall from grace. So it is that although their mistakes are regretted, there is nothing in their teachings to be apologized for or repudiated. Let these facts be grasped in their full significance, and they constitute unanswerable testimony for the divinity of the Church.

Notable Gaps in the History

The succession of popes is another subject which calls for comment, not that in and by itself it presents any problem, but because it is used so frequently as the basis of complaints. The critics of the Church, especially the Mormons, point out that there have been notable gaps in the history of the papacy, during which the office was without an incumbent. They regard these gaps or intervals as fatal to the continuity of the Church. Especially mentioned are the two intervals of three years during which there was no pope.

Again, let me plead for a little straight thinking and common sense. If the lapse of three years between one pope and his successor could be fatal to the continuity of the Church, then the lapse of three days likewise would be fatal, or three hours. The criticism presumes that each pope must personally and directly hand on the authority of the office to his successor, otherwise the authority would disappear. Let me ask you: Does it seem reasonable that our Lord would allow the continuity of His Church, guaranteed to endure until the end of time, to depend upon such a tenuous line?

Business Corporations

Let it be noted that the organization of the Church resembles in one respect that of most business corporations. It is usual for a corporation to be managed by a board of directors, one of whom is the chairman. When the chairman dies the corporation does not vanish, otherwise there would be never ending chaos all about us. The corporation continues to function, even without a chairman. The board of directors is in control. In choosing a new chairman the directors may disagree among themselves; they may quarrel; they may postpone the decision for an unreasonable time; they may do harm to their public relations; they may lose expected profits; but eventually they choose a chairman. Once chosen, he acquires all the rights and powers pertaining to the office, for the simple reason that the office had not ceased to exist.

It is similar with the Church. Her board of directors is made up of the bishops throughout the world, among whom the bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the chairman. When he dies, the office is vacant until a new chairman is chosen. During the interval, no matter how long or short it may be, the Church continues to function. If the interval is unreasonably long, the functioning is not at its best. The Church is harmed; but, and here is the only pertinent fact, the Church does not vanish. The office of the papacy remains. The new Pope, eventually chosen, acquires all the rights, duties, and authority that pertain to the office.

On one occasion, as critics eagerly point out, there were three rival claimants for the office. Which one was truly the pope? Assuming that the question is not answered, what follows? Was the Church taken from the world? Did she disappear? To the contrary, the bishops throughout Christendom continued to perform the duties of their office, each managing his assigned part of our Lord's kingdom. No doubt the rivalry did temporary harm, but it did not destroy the Church. The Church remained alive and active. Her continuity was not broken and her doctrines were not changed.

The Significance of the Episcopacy

What the Mormon and similar critics fail to grasp is the significance of the episcopacy in the continuity of the Catholic Church. They overlook the salient fact that the Catholic bishops are the successors of the Apostles and that, as successors, they enjoy and exercise the authority left by our Lord for the guidance and management of His kingdom among men. As a matter of reverence, the word "Apostle" has been reserved for the first bishops, the original twelve, with St. Matthias taking the place of Judas, plus St. Paul and St. Barnabas. Thereafter the successors have been known as bishops.

It is the bishops who keep the authority of God alive. It is they who ordain new priests. It is they who consecrate new bishops. Without bishops the Church would come to an end, for there would be no one to hand on our Lord's agency and commission to the next generation. But against this calamity stand our Lord's clear promises.

So long as there remain bishops, the Church can live; and this will be until the consummation of the world. It is conceivable that a new persecution of unprecedented violence could destroy the Church in all of what is now Christendom, forcing us to retreat to some remote and uncharted island. It is conceivable that all bishops but one could be killed. With that one bishop, however, the organization of the Church would continue to function. He would ordain new priests; he would consecrate new bishops, one of whom would be chosen the Bishop of Rome and the pope. The authority left by our Lord would still be exercised and the program of evangelization would be continued. Even under such extreme and extraordinary circumstances the Church would not have come to an end.

The Apostolic Succession

Let the Mormon critics only contemplate that nothing in the past nineteen centuries has come close to such an extremity. The continuity of the Church, the Apostolic succession, and the preservation of divine authority have not even been closely threatened. When the Church has been driven out of whole countries, as she was during the onrush of Mohammedanism, she remained active in other countries. When all her bishops were killed or driven out of England in the 16th century, the hierarchy remained safe on the continent of Europe. From there new bishops were consecrated and three centuries later were sent back to England. It will be similar during all calamities and persecutions. Somewhere bishops will survive, and in them the organization of the Church will be perpetuated. It can not be destroyed.

The critics of the Church, Mormons and others, take great delight in describing the difficulties which have been experienced during the past nineteen centuries. They point to human mistakes, and mistakes there have been. They point to public sins and scandals by representatives of the Church; and there have been sins and scandals. They point to unwise policies and imprudent leadership. They point to everything that has caused friction in Christian communities, to everything in which the Church has been embarrassed. But these same critics are unwilling to face up to the incontrovertible fact that the Church has lived through all these experiences.

Confirmation of Her Divinity

There have been enough calamities to destroy a merely human institution. The very fact, therefore, that the Church has survived is the miracle; it is confirmation of her divinity. So we invite our critics to pile up their complaints against the Church. Let them paint the picture of the alleged misdeeds as black as possible. Let them indulge their imaginations to the full, adding crime after crime to the record. The worse they make the story, the more remarkable is the survival of the Church, the greater is the miracle. It is commonplace for an institution to maintain itself when it faces no difficulties, when its leaders and members behave perfectly. But it is most remarkable for an institution to survive for nineteen centuries through all the harrowing experiences of which the Catholic Church is accused. It is so remarkable that it marks her as being more than human. It singles her out as wholly unique among the institutions of the world, as the only one which is both divine and human.

* Scripture texts are from the King James Version because that translation is approved for Mormon use, according to one of their spokesmen.

© Radio Replies Press

This item 7323 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org