For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_in_SD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kevangreen said:
calling like it is a common catholic trait,
the bible even warns about it
2Cor. 11:3-6
**3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ., or a different gospel from the on 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received e you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to least inferior to those super-apostles. 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? **
Click to expand...
You’re not calling it like it is - you’re acting like a child; calling names and whining.

Grow up and post on topic.
 
Snow said:
You’re not calling it like it is - you’re acting like a child; calling names and whining.

Grow up and post on topic.
Click to expand...
nice comeback, **diversion **a nice mormon trait,
i am talkin about apostasy, it never happened
at all
 
guanophore said:
How can there not be? 😃
Click to expand...
yeah
that mean keep what i have taught you on ,
confession, communion,
they was no new testament
i.e. 2Cor. 11- 3-6
**3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ., or a different gospel from the on 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received e you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the this perfectly clear to you in every way. 7Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to least inferior to those super-apostles. 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge?

**
 
Snow said:
I have to say that I am surprised by the behavior I find here from some of the discussants.

My home message board is and LDS site and we have some Protestants and Catholics that post with us there. There are treated as warm friend or honored guests,

Here, some also treat us warmly but others are outright unChristian and nasty, On another thread one said, out of the blue, that Mormons are the best liars in the world, Others will insult or demean in most every post, Here, from what I can tell, on a thread about the apostasy, accusations of made about LDS leader’s character.

It is very bizarre. I don’t agree with many RCC beliefs and enjoy debating the merits but I would stand with the Catholics against anyone who would denigrate and marginalize them or be dishonest about them, or claim that they were liars or not Christian or any such malarky.

We disagree with them but they are our fellow brothers and sisters. When they are lessened, we are lessened. Same for all people of faith and honesty. I don’t mind getting into the fray when attacked and maligned or lied about, but what’s the point of attacking just to attack? There’s no point at all.
Click to expand...
I don’t why you are surprised and acting all I am an angel. bukowski started with posting about corrupt popes. I responded by pointing out that for all the corruption of the handful of bad popes, none ever taught their sinful actions as doctrine. Which, Joseph Smith did.

THIS IS FACT.

If you can’t deal with the facts of your church, don’t throw rocks at the Catholic Church in a Catholic forum.

And this passive-aggressive behavior of yours is getting old. You posted right after this lovely bit of nonsense something about Vatican propaganda.

So you can stop with the ‘oh I am so persecuted act’. No one is buying it.
 
BDawg said:
People like Ehrman can put together historical evidence that Christianity was a mixed bag even during the Apostles’ time–the New Testament indicates as much.
Click to expand...
No. To say that “Christianity was a mixed bag” is the same as saying that Jesus gave confusing teachings, and that He did not really do what the NT says He did by making sure they understood everything, or investing them with the power to preserve what He had taught. The NT indicates that there were heresies from the beginning, but that the unified Church, by the authority invested to the apostles by Christ, defeated them consistently.
BDawg said:
Code: 
But the idea that there never was any core Christianity is strictly speculation, since the New Testament clearly indicates that Jesus ordained Apostles, and they were, in the main, united in their message.
Click to expand...
Now you are contradicting what you wrote above. 🤷
BDawg said:
So if we take the NT at face value, we have the Apostles and their followers, along with a number of groups (Judaizers, proto-gnostics, antinomians, etc.) that resisted their authority. Looks like an apostasy in the making to me.
Click to expand...
Apostasy refers to those who have embraced the truth, then turned from it. Splinter groups and resisters are not apostates, but unbelievers.
BDawg said:
Code: 
During the NT period, more apostles than the original 12, like Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas, were called, and they exercised authority over the churches in various localities.  (Just read Paul's letters.)
After around 110 A.D., somehow there were no Apostles left, and only local leaders like bishops and presbyters in place. There is no indication that any of these bishops exercised any authority outside of their own areas.
Click to expand...
Does that mean you admit that they did exercise authority insid their areas?

Do you agree that the Apostles had authority over all areas?
BDawg said:
Clement of Rome is the probable author of a letter to the Corinthian church, in which he exhorts them not to kick out their local leaders, but he doesn’t claim any sort of apostolic authority over them.
Click to expand...
I bet you wish that were the case. On what basis does he exhort them, then?
BDawg said:
Because nobody at the time seemed to realize that the Roman bishop inherited Peter’s primacy. Nobody started saying that until the mid-third century.
Click to expand...
Clearly the historical record indicates that your statement here is false.
BDawg said:
So the sequence of events the historical documents give us is this:
  1. A centralized leadership with the Apostles.
  2. More Apostles were ordained from time to time.
  3. Lots of dissenting groups within Christianity opposed the Apostles.
Click to expand...
The “dissenters” you have cited above were not “within Christianity”. However, I will agree that there were also dissenters that were corrected by the Apostles.
BDawg said:
  1. Somehow, new apostles stop being ordained, and eventually only local leaders are left.
Click to expand...
This is because no one else could meet the requirements for an apostle. However, it is good that you recognize that ordination to office did occur.
BDawg said:
  1. There is a power vacuum, with no centralized leadership for at least a century or two.
Click to expand...
This statement contradicts what you have posted previously also. You have conceded that there were local authorities that exercised in their regions. You have conceded that ordination happened. You have conceded that local leaders were left in office after the death of the apostles. There was no “power vaccuum”. This is carnal /secular thinking.
BDawg said:
  1. The Roman church starts making claims of primacy 1-2 centuries after the fact.
Click to expand...
The Primacy of the Roman Church is based on the solid foundation of teaching laid there by Peter and Paul. Unity emerges from Truth, and the degree of apostolic teaching there from the two of them was far more than any other city.
BDawg said:
Personally, I think the Mormon interpretation of this historical progression makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is because your history is warped?
 
ronald_g_w said:
I have not read everything that has been said

Catholic claim their line of authority can be traced directly to St Peter who suffered martyrdom in 67 A.D.St Linusis said to have succeeded him the same year, Cletus succeeded him in 78 A.D. and St Clement became bishop of Rome in 90 A.D.

would this be correct ?
Click to expand...
That would be one of the claims. However there is no historical evidence to demonstrate it. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917, now in the public domain, has it slightly differently:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)

“(The first succession lists, however, identified Linus, not Peter, as the first Pope. Peter was not regarded as the first Bishop of Rome until the late second or early third century.)” and “St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca. 200) assumes that Peter and Paul jointly founded the church of Rome and inaugurated it’s succession of bishops (Against Heresies 3.1.2: 3.3.3). However, there is no evidence that Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics… Indeed, there is no evidence that Rome even had a monoepiscopal form of ecclesiatiscal government until the middle of the second century.” Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper Collins 1997, pp29-30
 
Snow said:
That would be one of the claims. However there is no historical evidence to demonstrate it. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917, now in the public domain, has it slightly differently:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)

“(The first succession lists, however, identified Linus, not Peter, as the first Pope. Peter was not regarded as the first Bishop of Rome until the late second or early third century.)” and “St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca. 200) assumes that Peter and Paul jointly founded the church of Rome and inaugurated it’s succession of bishops (Against Heresies 3.1.2: 3.3.3). However, there is no evidence that Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics… Indeed, there is no evidence that Rome even had a monoepiscopal form of ecclesiatiscal government until the middle of the second century.” Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper Collins 1997, pp29-30
Click to expand...
i am catholic homey
i dont no what you r talkin about
 
Snow said:
Could you state the “facts” please.

Just for the record… not supposition, not innuendo, not opinion… just the facts please. Primary sources will be appreciated.

… and just curious here… this is a thread about The Great Apostasy. Since you apparently feel that historical LDS leader and their practices are relevant, may we safely assume that Stephen VI, Urban VI, Clement VII, John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI, Leo X, Boniface VII, et all are appropriate for discussion?

… or would that be off topic?
Click to expand...
Go for it. It is on topic because of bukowski’s, and now your claim, that this has something to do with your pretend “great apostasy”.

So, say what you have to say. Catholics do not fear their history or sweep it under the rug with an assertion that God encourages sinful behavior.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Go for it. It is on topic because of bukowski’s, and now your claim, that this has something to do with your pretend “great apostasy”.

So, say what you have to say. Catholics do not fear their history or sweep it under the rug with an assertion that God encourages sinful behavior.
Click to expand...
i believe jesus forgives most of our sins
and that premarital sex does not leads to hell
 
RebeccaJ said:
kevangreen, what in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...
premarital sex 25 years ago in the catholic church was a big deal,
now it is not, why is this,
cuz on 40% of Catholics today are married before children
we have grown 100% since 1975 (750,000,000 people)
now premarital sex is sin but not looked down in as severe.
 
kevangreen said:
premarital sex 25 years ago in the catholic church was a big deal,
now it is not, why is this,
cuz on 40% of Catholics today are married before children
we have grown 100% since 1975 (750,000,000 people)
now premarital sex is sin but not looked down in as severe.
Click to expand...
It was a grave sin in 1975 and a grave sin today in 2008.

What changed is that more and more Catholics believe they can pick and choose what is sin and what is not.
 
RebeccaJ said:
It was a grave sin in 1975 and a grave sin today in 2008.

What changed is that more and more Catholics believe they can pick and choose what is sin and what is not.
Click to expand...
i am far from stupid the catholic church is lovin
it a 100 percent increase since 1975
 
kevangreen said:
i am far from stupid the catholic church is lovin
it a 100 percent increase since 1975
Click to expand...
kevangreen Catholic doctrine and thus teaching on chastity is VERY clear. None of which includes “have as many children as possible whether you are married or not.”
 
Snow said:
Here, some also treat us warmly but others are outright unChristian and nasty, On another thread one said, out of the blue, that Mormons are the best liars in the world, Others will insult or demean in most every post, Here, from what I can tell, on a thread about the apostasy, accusations of made about LDS leader’s character.

It is very bizarre. I don’t agree with many RCC beliefs and enjoy debating the merits but I would stand with the Catholics against anyone who would denigrate and marginalize them or be dishonest about them, or claim that they were liars or not Christian or any such malarky.
Click to expand...
I would also, and I agree that there is at least one large LDS site which I frequent which is very friendly. Most here are fine, but if you have noticed my lack of charity toward one in particular here, it is because he has a penchant for going on anti LDS sites and grabbing whole pages to post here, including photos of alleged temple ceremonies. I get a little testy when that sort of thing happens.
 
mfbukowski said:
I would also, and I agree that there is at least one large LDS site which I frequent which is very friendly. Most here are fine, but if you have noticed my lack of charity toward one in particular here, it is because he has a penchant for going on anti LDS sites and grabbing whole pages to post here, including photos of alleged temple ceremonies. I get a little testy when that sort of thing happens.
Click to expand...
sounds like an idiot
but back to basics catholic church will never reject more followers
 
RebeccaJ said:
Go for it. It is on topic because of bukowski’s, and now your claim, that this has something to do with your pretend “great apostasy”.

So, say what you have to say. Catholics do not fear their history or sweep it under the rug with an assertion that God encourages sinful behavior.
Click to expand...
It may have been too subtle for you. I apologize. It was rhetorical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top