T
twopekinguys
Guest
Excellent!! I never looked at it that way before.
- Status
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The heresies of the ancients either did not believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Soul, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ, our summit of faith and worship.
The ancients were mostly dealing with gnosticism, false stories, fables and embellishments that did not represent the faith given us by the apostles who were actual witnesses of Jesus Christ, for over 3 years…Christ did not call one man to be an apostle. He called a gathering of men so that we could perfectly receive the fullness of faith.
Christ is God. He did not make a mistake.
The spirit of the Church always is that where a theologian submits his reflections to the Church for review and discernment. In America, we have alot of man made religions, whose founders were accountable to no one.
The ancients were mostly dealing with gnosticism, false stories, fables and embellishments that did not represent the faith given us by the apostles who were actual witnesses of Jesus Christ, for over 3 years…Christ did not call one man to be an apostle. He called a gathering of men so that we could perfectly receive the fullness of faith.
Christ is God. He did not make a mistake.
The spirit of the Church always is that where a theologian submits his reflections to the Church for review and discernment. In America, we have alot of man made religions, whose founders were accountable to no one.
A
Arandur
Guest
Thank you. It has annoyed me for a long time that Restorationists redefine the word “Apostasy” to suit their use. Actually, they follow Joseph Smith in this–JS redefined many terms (probably because he didn’t understand them) and created new ones. Two more that give lots of trouble when trying to communicate with Restorationists are “Translate/translation” and “Revelate/revelation.” They use these words in different senses than we do, and while Catholics have a long tradition of trying to precisely identify the senses in which our words are used, they do not, often shifting senses mid-discussion.
To your point, one way to disprove the Total Apostasy theory is very quick, and semantic.
- “Apostasy” means turning away from one’s God to worship another. In the early Church, those who denied Christ to avoid imprisonment, torture, or execution, and offered sacrifice to other gods or reverted to paganism, were apostates.
- “Heresy” refers to false teaching about God or what He has taught us (through Scripture, Tradition, Christ, and the Apostles).
- In accusing the Church of a Total Apostasy, you would have to claim that every single Christian, or at least every single ordained Christian, openly decided to reject Christ and worship another god. Historical documentation runs incredibly strongly to the contrary. Instead, the best that can be accused about the Church is that “false teachings” crept in–which is heresy, not apostasy.
So “Total Apostasy” is a misnomer. “Total Heresy” must be what is meant. It would be helpful to get that right, so that we can talk more accurately on the grounds of heresy here rather than apostasy.
BTW, never before Christ do we see evidence of a Total Apostasy in Scripture. The closest we could theorize is before Noah, where only one family was left. And yet God still preserved His line of true believers–and His Word in Tradition and, later, Scripture.
It could also be noted that, as Jesus said, the Scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses’ seat” and should be obeyed (they had authority). Do as they say but not as they do. Thus while many may have believed falsehoods (heresy) or lived in sin, they still had authority during Christ’s earthly ministry.
A
Arandur
Guest
Interesting, then, that Smith’s theology bears so many more evidences of Gnostic influences than does Catholicism (Smith being a Mason, Masons perpetuating many Gnostic teachings). Especially interesting since some LDS (including on this thread) like to point to Gnostics as evidence of apostasy. Pot calling the kettle black.
And yes, I think it is a very strong point to make that 12 Apostles who lived with Christ through it all, along with the first 500 witnesses of the Resurrection and the early disciples, in the land where it all happened, somehow are a weaker, less credible witness or had less success in transmitting the Faith than Joseph Smith did 1800 years afterwards.
Sounds familiar in this context…
And what can you use to verify who is telling the truth, objectively, apart from their claims and your own subjective feelings (“burning in the bosom” and so forth)?
Scripture
History (God is the author of Salvation History)
Tradition
Reason
Natural Law
Archaeology (including the writings of the Early Church Fathers)
Accepting the word of an inventor of a novel religion, be it Joseph Smith or any other, without very critically judging it against other sources of knowledge is folly. How can you accept the word of one man or a few men against the word of millions, borne out through history (and the living witness of the Saints and the miracles of the Holy Spirit through them!), along with all other evidences of God’s work and meaning?
If any church is to be given the “benefit of the doubt,” shouldn’t it be the only one that claims to have been started immediately by Christ while he was on earth in 33AD, the only one that claims and can show continuity with this?
This is my question to all non-Catholic Christians: shouldn’t you first examine the Catholic Church (or EO, being all but the same), because of these superior claims that no one else even credibly attempts to make? And even give this first Church the benefit of the doubt because of that?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
St. Athanasius, bishop, was sent into exile atleast 4 times for opposing Arianism.
This idea came from a priest, saying Christ had a beginning and an end. What St. Athanasius saw was that such a thinking could lead to polytheism, which Mormonism is, and that this concept could eventually cause people to fall back into paganism.
The word, ‘consubstantiated’ was created by the Church to declare that Christ was one and the same with the Father, made with the same substance as the Father, God. Likewise, Christ is also True Man. Christ is True God and True Father, One in being with the Father and Holy Spirit.
The essence of universal Catholicism is communion…with God and with neighbor and all creation. We are constantly growing in faith that brings us deeper into communion with the Divine. This journey makes us adopted sons and daughters of God. We are not gods as premortal spiritual beings. We were conceived through the union of our parents with God’s life given to us.
I am reading now on this thread that the apostasy began at the Nicene Creed…which in essence condemns polytheism, which Mormonism is, and such a belief vulnerable to myth making and fables, which gnosticism is, and was condemned around 200 AD, going back to St. Ireneas.
The Nicene Creed expounded on the nature of Christ, His humanity and divinity, that needed clarification for the Church.
Before, I was reading on the threads here by Mormons that the great apostasy happened somewhere around the death of the last apostle.
The real issue is that the Mormon religion condemns the Catholic priesthood. That is the real essence of what the apostasy is inferring. The Gospel says that Christ chose His apostles, His disciples, and followers, and that they did not chose Him. He says there are those who are made for the spreading of the Gospel, and that there is no marriage in heaven. Mormonism refutes the very words of Christ Himself.
If anything, there was a tremendous turning to God in the first 300 years of Christianity, in spite of all the persecutions and breakdown of the Roman Emperor. And Constantine was first and foremost a ruthless emperor who defeated some of the most anti-Christian brutal Roman emperors.
Many risked death for Christ, we recognize documentation of many saints who were persecuted and offered up their lives for Christ, who were nourished by His Word and sacramental Eucharist.
There was no apostasy at the very first 300 years of Christianity, a falling a way from God.
If anything, I would say we are living in a great apostasy now with people ‘itching’ for new tales and wonders, and flying saucers, hidden manuscripts that are now being discovered that are supposedly turning the Christian world upside down…which they are not, because they are either forgeries or forms of gnosticism.
The other is the issue of witness. Christ chose 12 apostles. Good documentation in film making today looks at the witness of 10 people to film an event. If there is less than 10 people who witnessed an event, for the film maker it is not film worthy, it is not an authentic and verifiable documentary.
Mohammed had no witness. Joseph Smith had no witness and contradicted the teachings of Christ, the Eucharist, the foundations of Christianity that were in place by 100 AD…the books of Scripture, the liturgy in form of the Memorial, the ecclesial administration in form of the episcopacy, and the Apostles Creed. Then you have 300 years of persecution, the flowering of Christianity in the face of great odds, in the face of the moral decay of ancient Rome.
The first 300 years of Christianity was the planting of faith by the blood of martyrs, and the emerging Church that began, as Fr Barrows says, as a seed at Pentecost. Apostasy it was not.
There are the Restorationist Baptists who hold the same position as the Mormons, who believe there was some kind of apostasy. But both are in the same boat stuck in the fog…they cannot find out when the apostasy actually began.
I would recommend the Mormon visitors and others who come to this thread to visit:
www.calledtocommunion.com that covers alot of issues, that are being answered by former Protestant ministers now converting to Catholicism.
This idea came from a priest, saying Christ had a beginning and an end. What St. Athanasius saw was that such a thinking could lead to polytheism, which Mormonism is, and that this concept could eventually cause people to fall back into paganism.
The word, ‘consubstantiated’ was created by the Church to declare that Christ was one and the same with the Father, made with the same substance as the Father, God. Likewise, Christ is also True Man. Christ is True God and True Father, One in being with the Father and Holy Spirit.
The essence of universal Catholicism is communion…with God and with neighbor and all creation. We are constantly growing in faith that brings us deeper into communion with the Divine. This journey makes us adopted sons and daughters of God. We are not gods as premortal spiritual beings. We were conceived through the union of our parents with God’s life given to us.
I am reading now on this thread that the apostasy began at the Nicene Creed…which in essence condemns polytheism, which Mormonism is, and such a belief vulnerable to myth making and fables, which gnosticism is, and was condemned around 200 AD, going back to St. Ireneas.
The Nicene Creed expounded on the nature of Christ, His humanity and divinity, that needed clarification for the Church.
Before, I was reading on the threads here by Mormons that the great apostasy happened somewhere around the death of the last apostle.
The real issue is that the Mormon religion condemns the Catholic priesthood. That is the real essence of what the apostasy is inferring. The Gospel says that Christ chose His apostles, His disciples, and followers, and that they did not chose Him. He says there are those who are made for the spreading of the Gospel, and that there is no marriage in heaven. Mormonism refutes the very words of Christ Himself.
If anything, there was a tremendous turning to God in the first 300 years of Christianity, in spite of all the persecutions and breakdown of the Roman Emperor. And Constantine was first and foremost a ruthless emperor who defeated some of the most anti-Christian brutal Roman emperors.
Many risked death for Christ, we recognize documentation of many saints who were persecuted and offered up their lives for Christ, who were nourished by His Word and sacramental Eucharist.
There was no apostasy at the very first 300 years of Christianity, a falling a way from God.
If anything, I would say we are living in a great apostasy now with people ‘itching’ for new tales and wonders, and flying saucers, hidden manuscripts that are now being discovered that are supposedly turning the Christian world upside down…which they are not, because they are either forgeries or forms of gnosticism.
The other is the issue of witness. Christ chose 12 apostles. Good documentation in film making today looks at the witness of 10 people to film an event. If there is less than 10 people who witnessed an event, for the film maker it is not film worthy, it is not an authentic and verifiable documentary.
Mohammed had no witness. Joseph Smith had no witness and contradicted the teachings of Christ, the Eucharist, the foundations of Christianity that were in place by 100 AD…the books of Scripture, the liturgy in form of the Memorial, the ecclesial administration in form of the episcopacy, and the Apostles Creed. Then you have 300 years of persecution, the flowering of Christianity in the face of great odds, in the face of the moral decay of ancient Rome.
The first 300 years of Christianity was the planting of faith by the blood of martyrs, and the emerging Church that began, as Fr Barrows says, as a seed at Pentecost. Apostasy it was not.
There are the Restorationist Baptists who hold the same position as the Mormons, who believe there was some kind of apostasy. But both are in the same boat stuck in the fog…they cannot find out when the apostasy actually began.
I would recommend the Mormon visitors and others who come to this thread to visit:
www.calledtocommunion.com that covers alot of issues, that are being answered by former Protestant ministers now converting to Catholicism.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
If only your words could strike the heart of one Mormon.
C
Crux_Sacra
Guest
Regarding my last post in this thread, I think it’s also important to note that the saints referred to by St. John were present in his time. St. Paul also writes about the “cloud of witnesses,” who again, are present during his time. In order for there to have been a total apostasy, these saints, who received their reward “only after the saving work of Christ had been accomplished” (NAB-RE footnotes), would have had to abandon the faith after having literally gone to their reward.
There’s a serious flaw in the thinking of someone who believes that the Church Triumphant would or could abandon the Faith. Noah? Abraham? Moses? Dismas? Stephen? Final judgment is exactly that: final.
There’s a serious flaw in the thinking of someone who believes that the Church Triumphant would or could abandon the Faith. Noah? Abraham? Moses? Dismas? Stephen? Final judgment is exactly that: final.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Mormon belief allows room for a person to convert after they are dead, in a “spirit prison”.
:newidea: Maybe they should have proxy excommunications, just in case a dead person has apostatized.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Just curious.
Did he ever answer the question?
No?
I’m so surprised.
Did he ever answer the question?
No?
I’m so surprised.
Z
Z_Ninja
Guest
Fatboys, exactly. The Church did not fail, therefore authority did not leave the earth. You’re more or less making the point Paul is making. Of course, Jesus was not weak, nor cruel, nor was he a liar. He did not leave his Church as orphans.
I know there are a lot of terms that get redefined, but never thought to define what an Apostasy really was. I never thought about it like this before, thank you, that is very interesting.
A
Arandur
Guest
It’s more than that, even. I’ve pointed out in other threads how the idea of a total apostasy makes Jesus the butt of his own parables. I’ve never had anyone try to refute or address that. For instance (and this is only a partial list):
Jesus promised that “I [Jesus] will build my Church.” If that’s the case, and it is JESUS HIMSELF doing the building…
- Jesus is the fool and laughingstock who failed to count the cost before building the tower or sending out armies to engage the enemy
- Since the Gates of Hell/Hades prevailed against the Church (the mortal, physical Church on earth died out), he is an oathbreaker
- Jesus broke his oath to preserve his Bride (the Church) spotless
- Jesus is a polygamist or, more accurately, an adulterer, abandoning his Bride for another (and another–in the Book of Mormon tale of his church in the early Americas–and a third, by Smith’s current restoration movements)
- Jesus’s physical Body has died twice more after the Resurrection (the Body, the Church, died out both in the Old World and in the New).
- Jesus is the fool who built his house on shifting sands, not on rock, having not known, not considered, or not prepared for the storms that would come.
- Jesus is a King who abandoned his Kingdom, or let it be conquered here on earth.
- Jesus is NOT the Good Shepherd, for he abandoned his sheep, letting the lost and wandering ones, remain lost for 1800 years.
- Jesus’s Kingdom is NOT a beacon on a hill, for it was not visible for 1800 years.
- Jesus’s gift of the Holy Spirit was fruitless, not guiding into all truth, since the Church fell away from truth. In fact, this gift, given for the first time after his Resurrection, rendered his faithful far LESS faithful and powerful than ever before, since never before was there a total apostasy, but now within the lifetime of the Apostles it dies out. And then it dies out again in the New World.
Restorationists simply haven’t examined Scripture with eyes open enough to realize that the claim of a total apostasy of the Church is heinous blasphemy against Jesus, and an endorsement of Satan as the more powerful, more enduring, more steadfast and consistent lord.
Those are some pretty serious stakes in this issue.
F
Fatboys
Guest
- Since the Gates of Hell/Hades prevailed against the Church (the mortal, physical Church on earth died out), he is an oathbreaker
Again, the rock that Christ was refering to Peter was the Rock of Revelation to man. This is how Peter received his knowledge of the Son of God. And because of the Son of God, the Gates of Hell which means the dead which are in the graves will not prevail against the Son of God. Or that the Gates of Hell which hold the dead in will not prevail because the Son of Man will die and be resurrected, and physical death will not have power to hold the dead as it did.
A
Arandur
Guest
Could you respond to the other points, please? And explain how you’re not making Jesus the butt of his own parables, blaspheming against him, by claiming that He built His Church on shifting sand that was washed away in the first storm?
That He started building His Church but didn’t count the cost and couldn’t finish?
That He didn’t see what the enemy would bring against His Church and didn’t prepare for it?
That He abandoned His Bride for another?
That His Body (which is physical, earthly), the Church, died out on earth?
That He let His Kingdom be conquered?
That He let His sheep be lost and did not pursue them for 1800 years?
That the gift of the Holy Spirit was ultimately fruitless and short-lived?
As to the “Rock,” you seem to forget that “Peter” means “Rock.” Jesus was clearly titling Simon “Rock” with that name change. Otherwise there would have been no name change, or at least not to “Rock.”
Remember that the foundations of the Church are the 12 Apostles (as we see in Revelation and elsewhere). Jesus is the cornerstone, the guide, the first placement by which all are aligned. He is also, in another sense, himself the rock. But with the Apostles as the foundation, for the Church to fail, or for it to somehow not have or lose apostolic succession directly from those 12, would mean that this foundation was discarded. Jesus decided to ditch that, apparently, and lay a new foundation. Oh, he also ditched the second, separate foundation he had started with supposed apostles in the New World, too. So your church is on foundation attempt number 3, apparently. I wonder how many more we’ll see?
The attempt to associate “rock” with “revelation” also doesn’t help with the parable of the builder placing his house on rock vs. sand, anyway. You’re saying that whether the “rock” is revelation, Simon-Peter, or anything else, it still proved as worthless a foundation as sand, since the Church was washed away with the first storm.
P
pablope
Guest
Hmmm…can you explain John 1:42…And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).
So…how could Jesus then, in Matthew 16…say that he is not referring to Simon and renaming Simon, finally calling him Cephas/Rock/Peter…be not referring to Simon? So Jesus forgot what He said in John 1, when He first met Peter?
F
Fatboys
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Going back a few posts…to say the apostasy happened at the beginning of Christianity is utterly ridiculous. I am sorry to say this, but it is true.
On the contrary Christians would rather die than renounce their faith in the Lord. Ancient Rome was truly the source of the Evil Empire, the universal Babylon, where if you were not a Roman citizen, you were a slave.
And if you were a Roman citizen, you were a slave to your own passions and delirium, as they were forced to attend the daily games and slaughters at the Coliseums.
Once the people of Rome had the life changing event of encountering Christ, they found new life and new freedom, even if they had continued as slaves.
And the Roman Catholic Church is called as such because Peter and Paul were both called to Rome to found the Church there. It was always dominant and arbitrating disputes among the local churches, and was the richest and supported building new churches in new lands.
The LDS temple that is forthcoming will never come close to being on competitive and equal footing as our ancient Church, even if the Vatican is destroyed some day by war. Because the Church is comprised of Jesus Christ Who always promised to remain with us.
So the True Roman Catholic Church is first of all, One…Our Church is not in competition with other religions, but instead focuses on us coming into full communion with the Holy Trinity. Our Church is Holy…not of itself, but because of its faith and sacramental life, we cannot call ourselves saints as our holiness is not of us, but of Christ Himself. We are transcendent and thus universal, our message of Christ transmitted by the Holy Spirit that penetrates culture and hearts. We are apostolic because ours is the faith remaining with the tradition of understanding that Peter and the Apostles gave us.
As other posters have shown, apostasy is the turning away from God.
Justin the Apostate was an apostate who came to Christianity, and then left it.
Look to him as starting the apostasy…he tried 3 times to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem to prove Christianity wrong, but so many weird things happened, his staff refused and quit the project.
We are ecclesial Deists. We believe our God is great enough to come down to us in the form of Man, to reconcile us to the Father, and to let His Humanity become dead, resurrected, and glorified…and then to share Himself…Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity with us. The more we are open to God and avoid sin through His strength, the more we are conformed to being true sons and daughters of the One True God.
How Good this God, who is the Unmoved Mover, Who has always remained with us and strengthen us!!
On the contrary Christians would rather die than renounce their faith in the Lord. Ancient Rome was truly the source of the Evil Empire, the universal Babylon, where if you were not a Roman citizen, you were a slave.
And if you were a Roman citizen, you were a slave to your own passions and delirium, as they were forced to attend the daily games and slaughters at the Coliseums.
Once the people of Rome had the life changing event of encountering Christ, they found new life and new freedom, even if they had continued as slaves.
And the Roman Catholic Church is called as such because Peter and Paul were both called to Rome to found the Church there. It was always dominant and arbitrating disputes among the local churches, and was the richest and supported building new churches in new lands.
The LDS temple that is forthcoming will never come close to being on competitive and equal footing as our ancient Church, even if the Vatican is destroyed some day by war. Because the Church is comprised of Jesus Christ Who always promised to remain with us.
So the True Roman Catholic Church is first of all, One…Our Church is not in competition with other religions, but instead focuses on us coming into full communion with the Holy Trinity. Our Church is Holy…not of itself, but because of its faith and sacramental life, we cannot call ourselves saints as our holiness is not of us, but of Christ Himself. We are transcendent and thus universal, our message of Christ transmitted by the Holy Spirit that penetrates culture and hearts. We are apostolic because ours is the faith remaining with the tradition of understanding that Peter and the Apostles gave us.
As other posters have shown, apostasy is the turning away from God.
Justin the Apostate was an apostate who came to Christianity, and then left it.
Look to him as starting the apostasy…he tried 3 times to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem to prove Christianity wrong, but so many weird things happened, his staff refused and quit the project.
We are ecclesial Deists. We believe our God is great enough to come down to us in the form of Man, to reconcile us to the Father, and to let His Humanity become dead, resurrected, and glorified…and then to share Himself…Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity with us. The more we are open to God and avoid sin through His strength, the more we are conformed to being true sons and daughters of the One True God.
How Good this God, who is the Unmoved Mover, Who has always remained with us and strengthen us!!
C
Crux_Sacra
Guest
Wow! I have never thought of it that way, but that is absolutely right!
J
Janderich
Guest
It appears posters on this thread keep trying to define apostasy in extremely strict terms by using words such as “complete”, “total”, and the idea that in order for an apostasy to occur every single Christian had to turn and worship another god. By fencing the word “apostasy” into such a strict definition no doubt there has never been an apostasy since Adam first spoke to God. However, such is not the case.
However, I don’t believe it is constructive to banter about the meaning of a specific word. Instead it is useful to understand what LDS might mean by apostasy. Clearly, in order for there to be an apostasy not every person needs to become an unbeliever. Indeed truth has always, and will always, exist in the minds of men. When Joseph Smith asked which church to join, the Lord told him he should join none of them for they were all wrong. But the Lord further says that the churches have “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History 1:19). Thus the Lord acknowledges there is a form of godliness in the churches, but he still points out that the power of God is no longer with them. To have the form is not to have the power. The loss of God’s power could be summed up in three ways:
- The loss of clear-cut priesthood authority
- The corruption of ordinances
- The loss of continuing revelation to guide the church from its head
S
SteveVH
Guest
Great post and you are exactly right. “Apostasy” is a completely inappropriate term to use considering the Mormon argument. What is ironic is that the reason that the Catholic Church has declared Mormon baptism invalid is because their beliefs are so beyond Christianity that they cannot even be considered heretical. It is the LDS Church that is apostate, its members worshiping a god made in their own image.
- Status