Talk:Great Apostasy

Adventists

FIrst of all, I like the article. Secondly, I think that putting Jehovah's Witnesses under "Adventisits" is not fully correct. Yes, Russell had some significant influence from adventist teachings. Jehovah's Witnesses are not adventists though as neither group associates itself with the other, nor did Russell ever open an adventist church. In fact, never in the history of the group have they idetified themselves with the adventist church and vice versa. Also Russell himself credited many past religious teachers and groups with influencing his undersatnding of the bible.george m

Ok, so what's the best way to fix it? Should the Adventists section be split into two separate top-level headings, maybe "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Seventh-Day Adventists"? Wesley 16:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is a wreck

Casual reader here, and I've never before felt the urge to comment on a Wikipedia article's backpage before, but this article is a debate, with factual information rare. I'd suggest removing it altogether. Are there not pages/sections for each denomination's theology, where what little factual information is here could be recapped (say, a "Great Apostasy" subheading on the page Beliefs_and_practices_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints or on the Counter-Reformation page)? Those pages generally have a better tone than this internecine squabble. It should be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.91.54 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion would be a lot more helpful and likely to be taken seriously if you were to speak in specifics rather than generalities. With your comment, it's unclear what exactly you are concerned about in regards to this article. I would suggest itemizing your concerns, then allowing them to be discussed before you recommend the deletion of a page. Also, since you seem to be new to Wikipedia, it would be a great help if you were to set up a user account. Registered users are far more likely to be taken seriously than users with only an IP address. It would also be a great help if you were to sign your own posts rather than having them autosigned by a bot. Just a few things for you to consider. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found it pretty common on wikipedia for people to talk about how horrible an article is and request deletion and it pretty rare for people to actually revise an article. Feel free to rewrite the article to your liking or go visit an actual encyclopedia website. You are wasting your breath if you think this comment will inspire someone to rewrite the article for you, so that task is on you. 69.116.158.191 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found it pretty common for people to revise an article. In fact, I just checked and in one sample minute Wikipedia was edited 100 times and 85 of those were article changes. What are the exact issue with this article? Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea posited by most of the commentators that the article has many problem issues, including and foremost that it is not an encyclopedia article but an editorial. Theanswerman63 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

BRD - let's Discuss. Wikifying this page

Thanks to Theanswerman63 for recent edits and comments above.

This page presents some facts about an idea widespread though not universal in various sects of Protestant Christianity. Per various comments above, the article has serious problems. First, its referencing is very poor, indeed much of the article appears to be original research. And second, it incorporates theological discourse from Christian sects that are accused of being part of this Apostasy. The theological OR converts this from an encyclopedic page into a low-grade sectarian argument.

I suggest a three-pronged solution. First, to remove the entirely-unreferenced material. Second, to remove the defensive (and, currently, OR) responses on behalf of the Catholic / Orthodox churches - a brief comment that these churches entirely deny the concept will suffice, if one can be sourced. We do not need to belabour the very obvious fact that they reject the idea that they form any part of any apostasy. Indeed, as far as I know, the long-established churches tend to ignore and despise the idea, rather than bother to argue against it. Third, to supply readable encyclopedic text with good references. These will be mostly from people with a rather extreme Protestant viewpoint. In an article upon the specific subject of an extreme Protestant idea, this is appropriate. However, I suggest that we should limit ourselves, in general, to authors who are regarded as within the mainstream of their own sects. Those whom no moderately-sized extreme sect will accept, or those whom their own sects treat as unhinged fanatics are, on the whole, probably best omitted.

In these edits we made a first cut at some of the entirely-unreferenced material and OR. There is more, but I'd appreciate comments on the overall plan and on these specific initial edits. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Richard Keatinge for your comments and insights. This article takes a particular POV that is not mainstream, but reflects only one side of a larger debate regarding what the Great Apostasy truly is or might be. The two largest churches in the world, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, would disagree with the POV of this article and have a different set of principles by which to define what is the Great Apostasy. I recommend the following:

1. The two footnotes at the end of the second paragraph need to be moved to the end of the first paragraph where they belong.

2. The editorial style of writing in favor of one POV makes the article less an encyclopedia article and more a term paper in favor of one view. Thus, the largely biased POV given in favor of fundamentalist Christian doctrine should be toned down and the other points of view by opposing sides be given equal weight and space. These opposing viewpoints should be made in the body of the article where they are originally addressed and not in a separate section all by themselves.

Once again, thanks to Richard Keatinge for his comments. Theanswerman63 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks in turn for this helpful response. I'd like to discuss a small point in the hope that this will be useful in itself, and may lead us to further fruitful discussion. You suggest moving the first two references, and I have no problem with Sozomen as a primary source for the variability of early Christian practice. However, he doesn't explicitly mention any apostasy great or small, and I'd prefer to use him as a reference for some comment such as "Early Christian ritual practice was extremely varied and had many elements in common with non-Christian practice." For the second assertion in that sentence, we'd really need a comment to that effect from a more-appropriate secondary source.

Hislop appears to me to be some way off his head, and also to have a very poor grasp of the non-Christian theologies that he mentions. I don't think that we should include the ramblings of a loony as evidence of anything except his own problems. I feel that he has little to offer this article and would prefer to leave him out.

How would you feel about these ideas? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Great ideas and I think both would be a step in the right direction. Feel free to make these changes unless others bring up problems on Talk. Theanswerman63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

At this edit I have rewritten the lede in accordance with the above. I will wait at least a few days for comments before I proceed. I'd like to suggest again that much of this article is unreferenced and OR, and it needs heavy pruning. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the first two paragraphs, among them:

1. "Great Apostasy" is mostly a Mormon term and not used frequently among other Christians. The first line might be changed to: "The term "Great Apostasy," primarily a Mormon term, is derived from St Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians..."

2. The writing is not clear and is jumbled in its ideas

3. The one footnote is referencing a writer that is almost completely unknown and should not be considered an excellent source

4. Discussion about the return of Jesus and the "falling away" has been discussed throughout the course of Christianity and is not an idea that began with Martin Luther. Reference to Luther should be taken out since he was one of many people through history who believed that the "falling away" had occurred and Jesus's return was imminent. (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are more modern examples of those who have also followed the idea that the "falling away" had occurred, and they even assigned dates to the Second Coming.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanswerman63 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'd suggest that the main problem with the lede is pretty much the same as with more or less all of the article. That is, there are too few references and almost no reliable sources, so that the whole thing reads like a rather poor schoolboy essay on theology. Also, there seems to be some confusion about the range of the article; should it be about all historical interpretations of Thess 2:3, or is it specifically about the "Great Apostasy", which doesn't appear in the Greek text, starts in English (thanks to Google Books, very useful) about 1600 and becomes widespread in later Protestant / Mormon discourse? I suggest strongly that it should be the latter, and that while we should mention the existence of other uses and interpretations of Thess 2:3 that don't specifically identify a Great Apostasy, we should do so only briefly.

I'd like to proceed by removing almost all the unreferenced ideas, especially all the primary theological argumentation, and all the repetition. This will leave only a skeleton of the article, which strikes me as much more useful than the present jumble. It could then be filled out with better material, preferably from appropriate recent academic works on the history of Christianity, occasionally perhaps by relevant and uncontroversial comments from high-quality primary sources such as Sozomen. Again, I'll leave it a few days before I do proceed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Great ideas. My preference is that the article not take a Catholic vs Protestant view, or Mormon vs The World, or any other partisan view, but rather is more general in its leanings about what is referenced in the letter to the Thessalonians. It seems the most common view of the term "The Great Apostasy" is that western culture has left the teachings of Christianity by adopting non-Christian ideas and principles (same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc.). This would be the focus of the article, unless you disagree. Theanswerman63 (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This may be the most common use of the term in current discourse. I don't know. We would need reliable sources to say so, and I don't mean sources arguing against the things that you mention. I'm confident that you can find plenty of those. We'd want, primarily, academic sources or good-quality journalism that specifically say that something is being widely described as the "Great Apostasy". Polemic sources would be appropriate as back-up. Until then we have "Great Apostasy" well-recorded as a specifically extreme-Protestant / Mormon view, from the 1600s on. The other interpretations of Thessalonians 2:3 may be worth very brief mention and an external link or two, but their further disputation, I'm sorry to say, is not appropriate for this article or anywhere else in Wikipedia, not even in our article on Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. One external link might be to [1], which seems to be the only result for searching the Catholic Encyclopedia for the phrase "Great Apostasy". Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

All of this sounds excellent. I think if you want to take a crack at the article, feel free to do so! Theanswerman63 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Sedevacantist view of Great Apostacy

I recently viewed a video on the YouTube Channel Vatican Catholic by MHFM (Most Holy Family Monastery) in which they espouse the view that the Great Apostacy began with the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). In the video they state proof of the Great Apostacy is the events at Assisi, Italy. Many Sedevacantist agree with the assessment made in the video. How is stating that these Sedevacantist have this interpretation any different than stating the Catholic Church interpretation is “of a future “falling away”? The editors who are removing my edit claiming I am promoting a religious view are wrong and right. In truth, to expose anyone to any religious viewpoint is to promote that religion if you are likeminded. But it certainly doesn’t change the fact that you are exposing the reader to the truth, that another interpretation exist. Deleting my edit is removing facts that readers could gain information. I came to the subject on Wikipedia looking for more information on the Sedevacantist position and found this site didn’t contain the Sedevacantist position. To all editors: if you want the information I provided removed? I suspect your intentions are to censor. The paragraph above the paragraph I added is exactly the same as the paragraph I added.

PhillipMH (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What source are you using? Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the only issue. The sedevacantist position isn't listed anywhere in the body of the article. Therefore it shouldn't be in the lede. The Catholic Church interpretation is in the lede because it is in the body of the article, where the statements are sourced. Additionally, there's the issue of undue weight - according to Sedevacantism, the number of people who hold to the idea is maybe in the hundred thousands, much less than most other groups discussed in the body of the article. Maybe it could be included in the body of article, though I'm not sure where, but it wouldn't be more than a couple of sentences. Finally, the statement that is being suggested for the lede seems unique to minority of the minority. Again according to the Sedevacantism article, most Sedevacantists place the "falling away" much sooner than the Day of Prayer event. For that reason I'm removing it from the lede, again; perhaps it could be included, with proper sourcing, in the body but at this point I see no consensus for keeping it in the lede. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Great Apostasy did start with Vatican II Robber Council. spSo few espouse this view because.... Well, we're in Great Apostasy. The Greatapostasy would necessarily hit Catholics, members of Church founded by Christ. And hit catholics satan certainly did. 2600:1700:B900:CF10:2CEB:D621:8379:6A04 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Catholics, members of Church founded by Christ" Jesus was long gone by the time of the East–West Schism. The Catholic Church only dates to 1054. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Easter Claim in Intro

"For example, Easter has been described as a pagan substitute for the Jewish Passover, although neither Jesus nor his Apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival."

I think this sentence needs additional clarification. Is this claiming that Jesus and the apostles never celebrated the Jewish passover? This claim is contentious: in Mt. 26:18, Christ directly states he is going to celebrate passover. This sentence is also equivocating if it is making the claim Jesus and his apostles never celebrated Easter. Easter is the celebration of Christ's resurrection, so it's rather absurd to state that Christ never celebrated his own resurrection after he was resurrected. NousEssayons (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Worldly Ambitions" of the Church

Hello, I am not trying to push any anti-Protestant or anti-Catholic agenda, but seriously, the "worldly ambitions" branch is gibberish, with all due respect to its author. This is how the article is now, as of 2022/03/14, GMT+1 22:35:

There have certainly been times when the Catholic Church has seemingly benefited from its affiliation with ruling governments, and vice versa. The church further used other means, such as the Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) where it forged a Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. There is also much evidence that the church sought to subvert or undermine ruling governments to bring them under its influence, in accordance with the dogma of the temporal power of the papacy. It used its agents or allowed the methods to be adopted for the acquisition of greater power and influence for the Roman Catholic Church. The Jesuits were seen as the church's soldiers, and, in the view of some, given free rein to use whatever methods as outlined in the forged anti-Catholic document Monita Secreta, also known as the "Secret Instructions of the Jesuits" published (1612 and 1614) in Kraków and were also accused of using casuistry to obtain justifications for the unjustifiable in their work (see: formulary controversy; Blaise Pascals' Lettres Provinciales).

Examples of the exercise of this subversive influence include regicides and attacks on Protestant-majority nations such as The Gunpowder Plot in England in 1605, and the church's blame in the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, resulting in the hanging of four Roman Catholics, and a ban by the U.S. Congress on diplomatic relations with the Holy See from 1867 to 1984.

Wikipedia cannot just have an article with claims that the Catholic Church wants to take over the world, as much as criticism of the Church is welcome. How is Gunpowder Plot or Lincoln's Assassination evidence of the Church's abuses? Where is any shred of proof that it was the Vatican that was behind these two?

And again, the first part only has sources that confirm the existence of Monita Secreta. There is no source or proof produces for the claim that "the church sought to subvert or undermine ruling governments to bring them under its influence".

This seems like an attack on Wikipedia's impartiality, because this reads like a conspiracy theory that lacks evidence. I will continue to delete this branch and I want to request that it's not restored until more people comment on it and proof for the currently outlandish claims is produced. Again, I am not trying to be anti-protestant here, but it's just absurd.

Just because you deem something to be absurd or outlandish does not make it untrue, or unworthy of inclusion in this or any other article. You have wrongfully deleted a great deal of well-supported historical content. You cannot claim lack of evidence or proof for this section after you have deleted corroborating sources and references, further supported by very relevant related wikilinks.

All of your above objections are explained by the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Temporal power of the papacy, which purports that the Pope as the vicar of Christ rules the world by Divine right in the place of Christ. Therefore they have for centuries taken actions to assert this dominance, with the Jesuit order as their primary tool. Historically the popes have ruled over European monarchs as "king of kings," a term otherwise applied only to Jesus Christ. The official reactions of the U.S. and Britain to the Gunpowder Plot and Lincoln's Assassination provide ample evidence as to how these events were viewed at the time, regardless of how much they may be downplayed, glossed over or outright denied today. The history of expulsion of the Jesuits from many nations, and the reasons for their expulsion, provide rich and ample evidence of many such crimes, with full blame being placed upon the Vatican and the papacy.

Wikipedia can (and should) absolutely repeat what the Roman Catholic institution claims for itself, be it "worldly ambitions" or otherwise, as well as recounting its fully documented centuries of history, while remaining fully objective. Also, you need to sign your comment, please. - JGabbard (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"king of kings," King of Kings, as in the title of Middle Eastern emperors? I was not aware it had correlations to Catholicism. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)