LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter soren1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Flyonthewall,

I gave you concrete historical background on our Church and its fidelity to the teachings that come to us from Christ through His apostles, and the sacred entrustment of the Church to fidelity of Christ.

St. Paul’s remarks are not attacking and invalidating the Church…where is the direct reference and the identification of such individuals? He does not. He is addressing the problems of those who follow their own ways rather than that of the Apostles.

It is Israel and not the United States that found in Jesus Christ that we find our true restoration. God does not play games. And we were given the fullness of truth in the Lord a long time ago.
 
flyonthewall said:
Yes, and Paul described the exact same thing happening in the church after he left. So if you want to use that as evidence or proof of lacking the Holy Spirit, the Catholic church falls into the same problem.

Ah, you say it seems like divination or the occult for that type of heavenly manifestation to occur…careful there, the day of pentacost falls into the same category.
Click to expand...
Then prove it Fly…was there a fracturing of the Church when Jesus ascended? When Peter was crucified, was there a fracturing of the Church similar to the LDS? Cite your historical sources that would prove what you are stating happened to the CC. Was there a scramble for Paul’s position when he was executed in Rome?

You cite Pentecost…that event was foretold by Christ, and it is in the very Bible which you hold to be the word of God. So you are questioning it as coming from the occult? Careful, though…you are close to saying a sacrilege.
 
Javl said:
I don’t know why it should scare you since a Hebrew Catholic is a Catholic. I assume that you are Catholic and as such you should know that the Catholic Church is a fullfillment and completion of Judaism. Just about all our Liturgy is based on Hebrew ( Judaic ) ritual and prayer.

In the Church Hebrew Catholics retain their Hebraic and cultural identity much as the Eastern Catholic Churches ( in communion with Rome ) retain theirs. Before, if a Hebrew ( or Jew ) became a Catholic, he/she had to give up their Hebraic identity. Not so anymore. Popes John Paul II and Bendict XVI corrected ( and apologized ) for the most grievous and unwarranted transgression against the Hebrews, that is blaming them all, regardless, for killing Jesus.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
Kathleen, I believe the Catholic Church is the universal church of Christ. I have a Catholic identity.

Javl, I said that a Hebrew Catholic IS Catholic. Who are you lecturing? The rest of your post is irrelevant to my issue with Kathleen’s point. No offense to you or Kathleen. We have more in common, I am sure, than we do not. I agree with your post quoted above, but Kathleen said something different that I took issue with.

Kathleen said “Then in time, the Christian Jews had to take a back seat so to speak to the Gentiles so they could enter in. Now we are seeing the return of prominence of the Hebrew Catholics…who now accept Christ as Savior and Messiah but wanting to bring back their Hebrew roots and incorporate them back into the Church for us as well.”

I view this as sect speak.

I interpret Kathleen’s post as saying that the Catholic Church basically needs to hand the reins to Hebrew Catholics, and allow the Hebrew Catholics take their rightful place at at the head of the Church and judaize the church.

With this notion I disagree. The Catholic Church is for all of the nations, started by Jesus and his Jewish Apostles, but given to the world, centered in Rome, not necessarily to be run by Hebrew Catholics.

I’ve never heard such a thing. if Kathleen meant something else, she can explain her quote or if that is what she believes she can defend it.

I’m fine with Hebrew Catholics retaining a Hebrew identity the same way a Copt can retain an Egyptian identity and joining the church. There is nothing wrong with being Hebrew and I would certainly welcome them in the Church. But they do not have a special place, in my opinion as leaders of the church and the entire church does not need to change for them.

And I fully agree with the Church apologizing for past transgressions.
 
Hi Pax…on the same page…

What I am addressing is the state of the Church in the post Vatican II era, the loss of faith, the falling away, the mismanagement of abuse and conflicts that did not follow the standard of Christ, across the spectrum of the Church, irregardless of our state of vocation in life.

I am coming out of my own personal tribulation…turns out many Christians irregardless of denomination went through similar trials…across our country…and I look at Europe’s Christianity and their falling away…as well as what is happening in Christianity world wide…

The Hebrew Catholic movement was a place of redirection, healing and growth. I work with a number of Jewish clients who are not Catholic, but with them I see their growing openness to personal fellowship with non Jews that is on a spiritual plane. This is the ingrafting…the two lamps…Judaism and Christianity…

No, it is not invalidating St. Peter at all. The beginning Church was Jewish.
 
Which brings me to the next aspect of ending this Apostasy thread…yes, the beginning Church was Jewish…the Church in Jerusalem was Jewish and it disbanded due to the Roman diaspora of the Jewish people. There were those Jewish Christians who survived. St. James the Lesser headed that Church, and it is assumed the Blessed Mother Mary was there as well.

So back to St. Paul’s farewell to the Gentiles at that particular church…you can’t use his farewell speech as the sign of the great apostasy…there were heretical groups paralleling Christ before His death. There were those numbers of followers who then left Him when He spoke of eating his flesh and blood and they perceived it as cannibalism.

To point out the Great Apostasy…wouldn’t you think that would be a separate topic all its own? There were heresies that came out paralleling the Apostles…St. Peter warned not to listen to angels or others but to them who were ‘bestowed’ with being chosen witnesses of Christ.

He told us not to change creed because of an angel…I see Moroni, 1800 years later in the same light…He told us not to personally interpret Scripture.

St. Paul never said to disregard the successors to the Apostles. The Mass was general by 150 AD…its basic intent and structure has not changed in 2000 years.
 
KathleenGee said:
Flyonthewall,

I gave you concrete historical background on our Church and its fidelity to the teachings that come to us from Christ through His apostles, and the sacred entrustment of the Church to fidelity of Christ.

St. Paul’s remarks are not attacking and invalidating the Church…where is the direct reference and the identification of such individuals? He does not. He is addressing the problems of those who follow their own ways rather than that of the Apostles.

It is Israel and not the United States that found in Jesus Christ that we find our true restoration. God does not play games. And we were given the fullness of truth in the Lord a long time ago.
Click to expand...
I do not look upon Paul’s remarks as an attack or invalidatiang the Church, but simply the course of events that were to happen, just like what happened with the Galatians.
Yes, he was addressing the problems of those who follow their own ways rather than that of the Apostles…isn’t that the same thing as I am stating?

I too believe the fullness was given in Israel, but as was foretold, an apostasy happened. It was a pattern with the House of Israel.
God was not playing games, anymore than when He established His covenant with the House of Israel. It was the people that strayed, not God.
 
The basic problem is authority. Who do we believe among people who is giving us the truth about Jesus Christ, Who He is…

It is about TRUTH.

The Apostles were verifiable witness to Christ. The Gospels and Epistles attest to it.

All believers from the beginning had a most cohesive unity and aware of their Christ centered gathering. They were formed together with the shared belief of the Risen Lord. The Church was Jewish and within Israel until the Holy Spirit led the Apostles outward. The Jewish Christians met in the synagogues but later separated and formed their own synagogues. St. Peter led them. When the Jewish or rather Nazarene Christians separated, they moved the Sabbath to Resurrection Sunday and ended the 40 day fast. They did not depend on some human base, but on Christ Himself.

St. Paul referred to the new church as the new Eve. The Church was looked at itself in the image of Christ…based on the Eucharist, and sacrifice. They were waiting until the Lord returned. The other was baptism that incorporated members into the Body of Christ.

As the Church grew, it developed into a bishop, priest, and deacon…because that structure was most effective in spreading the Good News. St. Paul said, “God has given first place to the apostles, the second to prophets, the third to teachers; after them, miracles, and after them, the gift of healing: helpers, good leaders, and those with many languages.”

St. Paul believed that direction not only come from the Apostles, but also the Holy Spirit in calling those to found and lead churches…but he always was part of fellowship, not acting independently on his own. St. Paul was always connected to St. Peter, and saw with him the ‘right ordering’ of governing. St. Paul envisioned not so much a hierarchical order, but a ministerial one. St. Paul was evangelist primarily to the Gentiles. But he always saw primacy at the Church of Jerusalem. He believed in freedom of the spirit.

But for St. Paul’s position, it only worked as long 'as the Church lived in expectation of the immediate end of the world and as long as the apostles were still alive. The Church continued on and the apostles died.

The next work for the Church was to stay with its origins and apostolic witness. What worked was the system of governing as set up in Jerusalem with electing a reliable bishop, ordained by the laying on of hands, bestowed with the Holy Spirit and the construction of elders as the administrative council rather than St. Paul’s charismatic following of the Spirit and waiting for the world to end.

By 150 or 160 AD, the time that St. Justin the Martyr prepared his explanation of what the Mass is and how it was practiced throughout the Christian world, and its form is essentially the same as today, the system of authority was finally set in place.

So the governing of the Catholic Church developed, but all with the utmost concern that it maintain its origin – the spouse of Christ, whose members center on the Risen Lord, the Eucharist as sacrificial meal and baptism, that the books of Scripture indeed present the Truth of God for public revelation and removing books considered either for private use or not in the truth of God’s authorship, and the Creed, defining the beliefs of a Christian.

This system was passed on to each generation. None of this form is in any way indicative of some kind of apostasy.

For a Christian to apostasize would mean that he or she no longer believes that Christ lived, died and rose from the dead, defeating the power of sin and death. One cannot make such a decision in a class action way. Apostasizing is rather the action of one person, one heart coming to Christ and then rejecting Him.

Christianity in the apostolic form – through its governing, upholding specific books as divinely inspired for public revelation, and the creed – has been practiced by countless people for 2,000 years.
 
To make a claim that Christianity is apostate does not bear witness to the truth.
 
Pax_in_Veritate said:
Kathleen, I believe the Catholic Church is the universal church of Christ. I have a Catholic identity.

Javl, I said that a Hebrew Catholic IS Catholic. Who are you lecturing? The rest of your post is irrelevant to my issue with Kathleen’s point. No offense to you or Kathleen. We have more in common, I am sure, than we do not. I agree with your post quoted above, but Kathleen said something different that I took issue with.

Kathleen said “Then in time, the Christian Jews had to take a back seat so to speak to the Gentiles so they could enter in. Now we are seeing the return of prominence of the Hebrew Catholics…who now accept Christ as Savior and Messiah but wanting to bring back their Hebrew roots and incorporate them back into the Church for us as well.”

I view this as sect speak.

I interpret Kathleen’s post as saying that the Catholic Church basically needs to hand the reins to Hebrew Catholics, and allow the Hebrew Catholics take their rightful place at at the head of the Church and judaize the church.

With this notion I disagree. The Catholic Church is for all of the nations, started by Jesus and his Jewish Apostles, but given to the world, centered in Rome, not necessarily to be run by Hebrew Catholics.

I’ve never heard such a thing. if Kathleen meant something else, she can explain her quote or if that is what she believes she can defend it.

I’m fine with Hebrew Catholics retaining a Hebrew identity the same way a Copt can retain an Egyptian identity and joining the church. There is nothing wrong with being Hebrew and I would certainly welcome them in the Church. But they do not have a special place, in my opinion as leaders of the church and the entire church does not need to change for them.

And I fully agree with the Church apologizing for past transgressions.
Click to expand...
Sorry Pax, I misunderstood. My apologies for my lecturing. You have to keep in mind though that the Hebrew Catholics do hold a special place in the Church. Our Christian heritage is Hebrew. Our liturgy, Rites, and a majority of our prayers are based in Judaism.
Christianity is the fullfillment and completion of Judaism since Jesus came primarily for their salvation as was foretold in the OT. They are our elders and we Gentile Christians are the ones who have been grafted to the tree. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
If it weren’t for the Council of Jerusalem, the Hebrew/Nazarene Christians would rule the roost and then the Church would not have its universal character. Can’t have one ethnic group dominate everybody…

There was basic format to the Mass as sacrifice…but also the local authority also reflected the customs and norms of the believers there…each culture having something of its own ‘flavor’…but nevertheless…the same fruits of the liturgy, Scripture, and creed.

We find our unity in truth.

'Jesus said that Peter was His rock upon which He would build His church. Jesus is the rock of salvation…and when He called Peter His rock, He meant that what Peter said in regards to faith and morals as Pedra/rock would be a human reflection of Him…that when the Holy Father speaks regarding faith and morals, Jesus, the Rock of Salvation, is speaking through him (them).

When Peter and his successors speak in faith and morals, the Rock of Salvation speaks through them. When Pope Paul VI condemned contraception and it being the main cause of the fall of public morals…98% of the Canadian bishops rejected his statement.’…but in the long run we can now see that Christ was truly speaking through Pope Paul VI’s prophetic words. Father Corapi’s reflection from last evening.

Flyonthewall, you should visit EWTN and look for Fr Corapi. I visit the Mormon station every so often to see what is going on…nice people.

Jesus is the Truth. He is always with us. He said He would never leave us.
 
Getting back to the subject of this post:

It has been shown time and again with irrefutable proof that the Church did not apostacize. Individual members of the Church, over time, may have and many did, but the Church as a whole did not and cannot apostacize no matter whatever the LDS says or claims.

Jesus Christ, who is God the Son, established His Church ( which is the Catholic Church ). He promised to be with it and protect it always. He is the Head of the Church. If the Church did apostacize, as the LDS ( and many others ) claim, then Jesus definitely is not who He claims to be. We “Christians”, then, are as bad as pagans in idolozing and worshiping an ordinary man, a con man and charlatan who has perpetrated one of the greatest frauds the world has ever known.

I know that Jesus most definitely IS who He says He is. The history of 2000 years is all the proof that is needed. Their claim is about the only thing that the LDS can use to support the reason for their existence. All other claims and reasons have been refuted and proven false and the LDS claim of apostacy of the Church is wishful thinking and but a strawman caught up in a windstorm.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
(I decided to post this since the OP is 6 months old)
bold: mine
from mormon.org:
When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.

After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord** took **the priesthood authority **and His Church **from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.

So, Jesus goes through all the trouble to establish His Church only to have God take it from the earth. Why?
 
Lax,

It is not substantiated by them, but they use St. Paul’s farewell when he speaks about deceitful people coming…that this is the proof.
 
lax16 said:
(I decided to post this since the OP is 6 months old)
bold: mine
from mormon.org:
When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.

After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord** took **the priesthood authority **and His Church **from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.

So, Jesus goes through all the trouble to establish His Church only to have God take it from the earth. Why?
Click to expand...
God sets up His religion with the House of Israel, puts in all the time and effort to deliver them out of Egypt, leads and guides them for 40 years through miracle after miracle, leads them to the promised land, sets up a kingdom lead by kings of His choosing, only to destroy their kingdom and scatter them throughout the world…Why?
 
lax16 said:
(I decided to post this since the OP is 6 months old)
bold: mine
from mormon.org:
When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.

After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord** took **the priesthood authority **and His Church **from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.

So, Jesus goes through all the trouble to establish His Church only to have God take it from the earth. Why?
Click to expand...
And why did He do it twice?
 
To answer your why? You forgot to include the King of Kings (Jesus) in your historical analogy.

To boot, after the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d had nothing to do with “The Way” first Jewish/Gentile (universal) Catholic church. Besides John the beloved disciple of Jesus lived past this 70 a.d date into 90 a.d. So how can the Church have entered into a “total apostasy” when the last living apostle (John the beloved of Jesus) lived past the Mormon suggested “Total apostasy” date of 70 a.d?
flyonthewall;7490277]God sets up His religion with the House of Israel, puts in all the time and effort to deliver them out of Egypt, leads and guides them for 40 years through miracle after miracle, leads them to the promised land, sets up a kingdom lead by kings of His choosing, only to destroy their kingdom and scatter them throughout the world…Why?
Click to expand...
 
flyonthewall said:
God sets up His religion with the House of Israel, puts in all the time and effort to deliver them out of Egypt, leads and guides them for 40 years through miracle after miracle, leads them to the promised land, sets up a kingdom lead by kings of His choosing, only to destroy their kingdom and scatter them throughout the world…Why?
Click to expand...
So you answer a question with a question? (doing my best Jewish imitation:p)

flyonthewall - Why are you comparing the Israelites,sinners, complainers, disbelievers, with Jesus Christ our Messiah, perfect, sinless, Divine?
 
Flyonthewall,

You need to study Christianity, especially the Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, accordingly from its documented base, not from the prism of Mormonism. If you do, ‘we’ will never win, nothing we say means anything, history, our lives of our saints and the charism they had, but especially the truth of Who Jesus Christ is and His mission to us and the world.

Mormonism is completely unsubstantiated. It had to create a new story, a new hidden tribe…in America no less, in an attempt to re-write Christianity.

You can’t stereotype and invalidate an entire class of people, in this case the apostolic Church. It is individuals within who leave the grace of Christ and creed, not entire entities of peoples covering Christiandom in that ancient time.

First of all, Mormonism isn’t even defining the actual tenants that were false, the actual dates and events…just some vague – and prejudiced – spin on the Church.
You were raised in alot of bias and regimented to think within a certain box, never to question, saying well, you are not being faithful. How many times have people become the strongest believers because they questioned to the point of suffering for it, and then to find the Truth, and become great people.

My prayer for Mormons is to become free and face the truth of Christ and the Church that He established. If Christ’s Church failed, then He was not the true Christ to begin with. But we know the Christ then is the same Christ of today and for all eternity.
 
‘Man was God before God became God…’…my quote.

To label Christianity as corrupt, an abomination with no concrete proof of how the apostolic church became apostate is a form of falsehood and injustice in itself.

Where I came from, we were taught not to label or pidgeon hole a class of people.

Just as conversion is the reality of one heart at a time turning to God, so is apostasy the action of one person rejecting God and His Apostolic Church.

So if Mormonism rejects Christianity, then who is the apostate???

One cannot reasonably make such a claim that the apostasy began somewhere down the slippery slope…while in reality the successors to the Apostles’ ever riding concern was to be faithful to the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ through His apostles in baptism, the Eucharist as sacrifice, the books of Scripture, and the Creed.

It took some time after the death of St. John the Evangelist to verify without any lingering doubt that his writings of the Gospel, the Epistles, and Revelations were truly his, and the Epistles to the Hebrews took 200 years to approve.

Christians have been worshipping God in the reception of the Eucharist for 2,000 years. The Great Heresy in those days was to be like the followers who rejected Jesus when He began to speak of eating His flesh and blood, thinking He was leading them into cannibalism…the great heresy being to reject the inner presence of God in the Eucharist.

The Catholic/Orthodox Church is where one will receive the Eucharist…the succession of the Apostles and the laying on of hands never broken.

I also pray for the dear Mormon people, and especially the women, to learn more about Mary the Mother of Jesus in the Catholic tradition, to read about testimonies attributed to her great help in our Christian walk, and in the restoration of women in the New Eve of Mary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top