The "Great Apostasy": History or Fiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BibleReader:
Oh my Heavens, Catholic Dude. The reason why the Church’s study says “accused” is because the Catholic Church always settles the civil claims before the Plaintiffs go to court and murder us with the evidence. Do you think that the Church is paying out millions upon millions upon millions of dollars because those 4,000+ priests are *innocent? *Believe me, you are deceiving yourself. The majority of “accused” priests – “99-44/100%”? – are guilty of more than they are accused of. They were promiscuous, sex-abuse-mass-producing homosexuals (–not “pedophiles,” as the press likes to call them… I investigated the accusations of 3 accusers. Their cases were essentially the same. Each of the boys was from a dysfunctional family. Each heard that they could make “easy money” in the rectory by dropping their pants. Each went back again and again. …

…In my opinion, based on the shame I see among victims, and their reluctance to publicly confess to dropping their pants for homosexual contacts with priests, the number of victims, instead of being 50,000, is probably about 100,000 – double – and the number of offending priests is probably about 50% higher.

… In my opinion our own bishops clumsily spearheaded the “Great Falling Away” in the world. The damage they have done to the Holy Church is huge.

My aunt was head of the Dominicans in the Western Hemisphere. She afterwards changed jobs, and became the Church’s biggest real estate salesman in New Mexico, engaged full-time in the sale of Church property to pay-off lawsuits in that state. She actually had to sell her own convent out from beneath herself.
Click to expand...
Hey, I never said that they were all innocent, just like I said about the Bishops who knew full well what they were doing would have to answer to God so will they. Are they paying out millions, YES, thats because there were guilty priests, and the best way was to settle quietly and save both sides from a media hay-day. I have read what the local ArchB and newspaper have said and if I remember it was something like each victim only got $10-100k each (depending on case) for a total of around $25mil divided/settled a couple hundred cases, not millions per “victim” like some of those gold diggers. You see the distinction?
You still cant throw out numbers when there is still so much we dont know.
How about these questions:
1)What happens when a priest is dead and cant defend himself?

2)Is it the Church that has to pay for what an individual has done? Or does the individual get off free and the Church fits the bill?

3)The biggest issue in my area is: Who does the Church property belong to? This is what is being challenged right now. This factor can determine if a few at the top can sell off all this property, or can each church only pay out what it hasto, if anything?

4)Why did it take so long for all this to come out? Does it have anything to do with sue-happy lawyers who wouldnt be able to get away with this gold digging a few years ago?

You say “murder us with evidence”…well if they are already bleeding us to death now what good is evidence?..we are hopless, just collapse the whole thing and go home? With millions of dollars, and property on the line the Church has the best lawyers and will tangle this thing for decades before gold diggers take them down.
Also you say “based on the shame” of the individuals 50% refuse to come out? So whats the percentage who came out just to get $$$ who were never hurt? After living with that kind of shame for so long no amount of money can console them. i.e. I bet a lot of those guys are gold diggers who took away the banner of the true victims!
Lastly, why is your aunt in real-estate? Who are the buyers? Whats a good church worth now days…one or two priests? Thats her new job, covering up for criminals? So she sold off her convent for the nun-predators and is willing to sleep in a cardboard box as long as she is allowed to be nun? If she can make a deal with the right people I bet she could get a lot for StPatrick’s or StPeters Square. Something is wrong with this picture.
Your fueling the fire, not trying to stop it. Thats all I see in your posts. You dont know what Catholics feel about this, the hole our generation has to dig itself out of. You want to burn it to save it? Your not Catholic, everyone here can see that. Sheep’s clothing!
 
Catholic Dude:
Hey, I never said that they were all innocent, just like I said about the Bishops who knew full well what they were doing would have to answer to God so will they. Are they paying out millions, YES, thats because there were guilty priests, and the best way was to settle quietly and save both sides from a media hay-day. I have read what the local ArchB and newspaper have said and if I remember it was something like each victim only got $10-100k each (depending on case) for a total of around $25mil divided/settled a couple hundred cases, not millions per “victim” like some of those gold diggers. You see the distinction?
You still cant throw out numbers when there is still so much we dont know.
How about these questions:
1)What happens when a priest is dead and cant defend himself?

2)Is it the Church that has to pay for what an individual has done? Or does the individual get off free and the Church fits the bill?

3)The biggest issue in my area is: Who does the Church property belong to? This is what is being challenged right now. This factor can determine if a few at the top can sell off all this property, or can each church only pay out what it hasto, if anything?

4)Why did it take so long for all this to come out? Does it have anything to do with sue-happy lawyers who wouldnt be able to get away with this gold digging a few years ago?

You say “murder us with evidence”…well if they are already bleeding us to death now what good is evidence?..we are hopless, just collapse the whole thing and go home? With millions of dollars, and property on the line the Church has the best lawyers and will tangle this thing for decades before gold diggers take them down.
Also you say “based on the shame” of the individuals 50% refuse to come out? So whats the percentage who came out just to get $$$ who were never hurt? After living with that kind of shame for so long no amount of money can console them. i.e. I bet a lot of those guys are gold diggers who took away the banner of the true victims!
Lastly, why is your aunt in real-estate? Who are the buyers? Whats a good church worth now days…one or two priests? Thats her new job, covering up for criminals? So she sold off her convent for the nun-predators and is willing to sleep in a cardboard box as long as she is allowed to be nun? If she can make a deal with the right people I bet she could get a lot for StPatrick’s or StPeters Square. Something is wrong with this picture.
Your fueling the fire, not trying to stop it. Thats all I see in your posts. You dont know what Catholics feel about this, the hole our generation has to dig itself out of. You want to burn it to save it? Your not Catholic, everyone here can see that. Sheep’s clothing!
Click to expand...
This subject has nothing to do with the topic heading. Please start a new thread.

Maggie
 
Catholic Dude:
Hey, I never said that they were all innocent, just like I said about the Bishops who knew full well what they were doing would have to answer to God so will they. Are they paying out millions, YES, thats because there were guilty priests, and the best way was to settle quietly and save both sides from a media hay-day. I have read what the local ArchB and newspaper have said and if I remember it was something like each victim only got $10-100k each (depending on case) for a total of around $25mil divided/settled a couple hundred cases, not millions per “victim” like some of those gold diggers. You see the distinction?
You still cant throw out numbers when there is still so much we dont know.
How about these questions:
1)What happens when a priest is dead and cant defend himself?

2)Is it the Church that has to pay for what an individual has done? Or does the individual get off free and the Church fits the bill?

3)The biggest issue in my area is: Who does the Church property belong to? This is what is being challenged right now. This factor can determine if a few at the top can sell off all this property, or can each church only pay out what it hasto, if anything?

4)Why did it take so long for all this to come out? Does it have anything to do with sue-happy lawyers who wouldnt be able to get away with this gold digging a few years ago?

You say “murder us with evidence”…well if they are already bleeding us to death now what good is evidence?..we are hopless, just collapse the whole thing and go home? With millions of dollars, and property on the line the Church has the best lawyers and will tangle this thing for decades before gold diggers take them down.
Also you say “based on the shame” of the individuals 50% refuse to come out? So whats the percentage who came out just to get $$$ who were never hurt? After living with that kind of shame for so long no amount of money can console them. i.e. I bet a lot of those guys are gold diggers who took away the banner of the true victims!
Lastly, why is your aunt in real-estate? Who are the buyers? Whats a good church worth now days…one or two priests? Thats her new job, covering up for criminals? So she sold off her convent for the nun-predators and is willing to sleep in a cardboard box as long as she is allowed to be nun? If she can make a deal with the right people I bet she could get a lot for StPatrick’s or StPeters Square. Something is wrong with this picture.
Your fueling the fire, not trying to stop it. Thats all I see in your posts. You dont know what Catholics feel about this, the hole our generation has to dig itself out of. You want to burn it to save it? Your not Catholic, everyone here can see that. Sheep’s clothing!
Click to expand...
This subject has nothing to do with the topic heading. Please start a new thread.

Maggie
 
Catholic Dude:
Hey, I never said that they were all innocent, just like I said about the Bishops who knew full well what they were doing would have to answer to God so will they. Are they paying out millions, YES, thats because there were guilty priests, and the best way was to settle quietly and save both sides from a media hay-day. I have read what the local ArchB and newspaper have said and if I remember it was something like each victim only got $10-100k each (depending on case) for a total of around $25mil divided/settled a couple hundred cases, not millions per “victim” like some of those gold diggers. You see the distinction?
You still cant throw out numbers when there is still so much we dont know.
How about these questions:
1)What happens when a priest is dead and cant defend himself?

2)Is it the Church that has to pay for what an individual has done? Or does the individual get off free and the Church fits the bill?

3)The biggest issue in my area is: Who does the Church property belong to? This is what is being challenged right now. This factor can determine if a few at the top can sell off all this property, or can each church only pay out what it hasto, if anything?

4)Why did it take so long for all this to come out? Does it have anything to do with sue-happy lawyers who wouldnt be able to get away with this gold digging a few years ago?

You say “murder us with evidence”…well if they are already bleeding us to death now what good is evidence?..we are hopless, just collapse the whole thing and go home? With millions of dollars, and property on the line the Church has the best lawyers and will tangle this thing for decades before gold diggers take them down.
Also you say “based on the shame” of the individuals 50% refuse to come out? So whats the percentage who came out just to get $$$ who were never hurt? After living with that kind of shame for so long no amount of money can console them. i.e. I bet a lot of those guys are gold diggers who took away the banner of the true victims!
Lastly, why is your aunt in real-estate? Who are the buyers? Whats a good church worth now days…one or two priests? Thats her new job, covering up for criminals? So she sold off her convent for the nun-predators and is willing to sleep in a cardboard box as long as she is allowed to be nun? If she can make a deal with the right people I bet she could get a lot for StPatrick’s or StPeters Square. Something is wrong with this picture.
Your fueling the fire, not trying to stop it. Thats all I see in your posts. You dont know what Catholics feel about this, the hole our generation has to dig itself out of. You want to burn it to save it? Your not Catholic, everyone here can see that. Sheep’s clothing!
Click to expand...
This subject is off-topic. Please start a new thread to discuss these issues.
Maggie
 
Catholic Dude:
Hey, I never said that they were all innocent, just like I said about the Bishops who knew full well what they were doing would have to answer to God so will they. Are they paying out millions, YES, thats because there were guilty priests, and the best way was to settle quietly and save both sides from a media hay-day. I have read what the local ArchB and newspaper have said and if I remember it was something like each victim only got $10-100k each (depending on case) for a total of around $25mil divided/settled a couple hundred cases, not millions per “victim” like some of those gold diggers. You see the distinction?
You still cant throw out numbers when there is still so much we dont know.
How about these questions:
1)What happens when a priest is dead and cant defend himself?

2)Is it the Church that has to pay for what an individual has done? Or does the individual get off free and the Church fits the bill?

3)The biggest issue in my area is: Who does the Church property belong to? This is what is being challenged right now. This factor can determine if a few at the top can sell off all this property, or can each church only pay out what it hasto, if anything?

4)Why did it take so long for all this to come out? Does it have anything to do with sue-happy lawyers who wouldnt be able to get away with this gold digging a few years ago?

You say “murder us with evidence”…well if they are already bleeding us to death now what good is evidence?..we are hopless, just collapse the whole thing and go home? With millions of dollars, and property on the line the Church has the best lawyers and will tangle this thing for decades before gold diggers take them down.
Also you say “based on the shame” of the individuals 50% refuse to come out? So whats the percentage who came out just to get $$$ who were never hurt? After living with that kind of shame for so long no amount of money can console them. i.e. I bet a lot of those guys are gold diggers who took away the banner of the true victims!
Lastly, why is your aunt in real-estate? Who are the buyers? Whats a good church worth now days…one or two priests? Thats her new job, covering up for criminals? So she sold off her convent for the nun-predators and is willing to sleep in a cardboard box as long as she is allowed to be nun? If she can make a deal with the right people I bet she could get a lot for StPatrick’s or StPeters Square. Something is wrong with this picture.
Your fueling the fire, not trying to stop it. Thats all I see in your posts. You dont know what Catholics feel about this, the hole our generation has to dig itself out of. You want to burn it to save it? Your not Catholic, everyone here can see that. Sheep’s clothing!
Click to expand...
This subject is off topic. Please begin a new thread and take the discussion about modern church problems over there.

Maggie
 
Catholic Dude:
Hey, I never said that they were all innocent, just like I said about the Bishops who knew full well what they were doing would have to answer to God so will they. Are they paying out millions, YES, thats because there were guilty priests, and the best way was to settle quietly and save both sides from a media hay-day. I have read what the local ArchB and newspaper have said and if I remember it was something like each victim only got $10-100k each (depending on case) for a total of around $25mil divided/settled a couple hundred cases, not millions per “victim” like some of those gold diggers. You see the distinction?
You still cant throw out numbers when there is still so much we dont know.
How about these questions:
1)What happens when a priest is dead and cant defend himself?

2)Is it the Church that has to pay for what an individual has done? Or does the individual get off free and the Church fits the bill?

3)The biggest issue in my area is: Who does the Church property belong to? This is what is being challenged right now. This factor can determine if a few at the top can sell off all this property, or can each church only pay out what it hasto, if anything?

4)Why did it take so long for all this to come out? Does it have anything to do with sue-happy lawyers who wouldnt be able to get away with this gold digging a few years ago?

You say “murder us with evidence”…well if they are already bleeding us to death now what good is evidence?..we are hopless, just collapse the whole thing and go home? With millions of dollars, and property on the line the Church has the best lawyers and will tangle this thing for decades before gold diggers take them down.
Also you say “based on the shame” of the individuals 50% refuse to come out? So whats the percentage who came out just to get $$$ who were never hurt? After living with that kind of shame for so long no amount of money can console them. i.e. I bet a lot of those guys are gold diggers who took away the banner of the true victims!
Lastly, why is your aunt in real-estate? Who are the buyers? Whats a good church worth now days…one or two priests? Thats her new job, covering up for criminals? So she sold off her convent for the nun-predators and is willing to sleep in a cardboard box as long as she is allowed to be nun? If she can make a deal with the right people I bet she could get a lot for StPatrick’s or StPeters Square. Something is wrong with this picture.
Your fueling the fire, not trying to stop it. Thats all I see in your posts. You dont know what Catholics feel about this, the hole our generation has to dig itself out of. You want to burn it to save it? Your not Catholic, everyone here can see that. Sheep’s clothing!
Click to expand...
this subject is off topic for this thread. Please take the discussion to a new thread.

Maggie
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
Bible Reader, this subject has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to discuss this subject please start another thread. This topic is about the claim made by Joseph Smith and it has to be answered by dealing with the issues associated with his claim.

Your topic is a lot broader. There are many modern issues to be dealt with that are associated with what is happening today.

Please desist from hijacking this particular topic. If you want to discuss the subject please start your own thread so that we can get through the hearsay and into the truth.

MaggieOH
Click to expand...
Hi, MaggieOH.

The title, or Post #1, define the theme of the thread.

I’ve looked at the title, and Post #1, several times, but the Mormons just aren’t mentioned.

Look:

TITLE: “THE GREAT APOSTASY”: HISTORY OR FICTION

**POST #1: **
**The allegation has been made **Quote:
**The RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).
**

**This is typically called “The Great Apostasy” theory (generally espoused by JWs, SDA, and Pentecostals) and has no historical basis in fact whatsoever. The early church always responded to heresy and apostasy as is documented many many times in their writings, yet there is absolutely no evidence that the things the Catholic Church teaches ever came under such condemnation. In fact the writings of the early church fathers unanimously show that what they believed was indeed Catholic…like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and others. Dishonest anti-Catholic scholars use edited histories and false accusations to disparage the Catholic Church. I find it hard to understand how anyone can accuse us of following the traditions and teachings of men when they do it with their preachers all the time. Just because some preacher mounts his pulpit and says that something is so they accept it as if it’s Gospel. I also fail to understand why others cannot simply preach their “Gospel message” without disparaging other religions. Will their Gospel not stand without their attacks on other people? If not I would find those messages very seriously flawed. I will also point out that I have never heard such coming from the homilies in any Catholic Church I have ever attended. (Thanks Be To God!)

Pax vobiscum,
**
**__________________
*****Dominus meus et Deus meus! ***
**:gopray: **
Michael

I really am not trying to be difficult, but try as you might you won’t see Mormons mentioned there. JWs are Jehova’s Witnesses. SDA are Seventh Day Adventists. Pentacostals are Pentacostals.

It occurred to me that these words…
**The RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).**
…might be words that were spoken by a Mormon quoted elsewhere in the site. But just because the words were SPOKEN BY a Mormon doesn’t make the words ABOUT Mormons.

In fact, the words are about US, the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, the words talk about “polluting the original message” in the 3rd and 4th century – we gather (from the title of the thread) to suggest that the Great Falling Away or Great Apostasy occurred then, not now.

If I generate good evidence that the Great Apostasy is occurring now, not then, I have successfully discussed the title, and successfully refuted precisely the point disputed.

What are you talking about?
 
40.png
BibleReader:
In fact, the words are about US, the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
BibleReader,

You need to make sure that you always draw the distinction between the Church and churchmen. The Church will never fall into error, because all of its teachings (dogmas) are infallible. On the otherhand, churchmen may fall into error by rejecting the teachings of the Church. That is what is taking place today at to the highest levels of the hierarchy. Most of the Church leaders are loosing the faith and the faithful are being led into error by the wolves. This is the reason for the great apostacy which is taking place today. But The Church itself will never fall away; it will always remain “without spot or wrinkle”.

Be sure to always make the distinction between the Church and churchmen. The Church will never be disgusting, but churchmen certainly may. It just so happens that most of the Churchmen (Bishops and higher) are pretty digusting today.
 
40.png
RSiscoe:
BibleReader,

You need to make sure that you always draw the distinction between the Church and churchmen. The Church will never fall into error, because all of its teachings (dogmas) are infallible. On the otherhand, churchmen may fall into error by rejecting the teachings of the Church. That is what is taking place today at to the highest levels of the hierarchy. Most of the Church leaders are loosing the faith and the faithful are being led into error by the wolves. This is the reason for the great apostacy which is taking place today. But The Church itself will never fall away; it will always remain “without spot or wrinkle”.

Be sure to always make the distinction between the Church and churchmen. The Church will never be disgusting, but churchmen certainly may. It just so happens that most of the Churchmen (Bishops and higher) are pretty digusting today.
Click to expand...
Hi, RSiscoe.

I appreciate, and agree with, your distinction.

But, functionally, you’re asking me to recite an undisputed postulate rather than solve the problem.

Over in “Ask An Atheist” in the MSN Groups network, Catholic-hating crazies would scream apoplectically (sp?) at me about pedophile priest perverts seizing and raping helpless little children in the butt.

How effective is it, in that scenario, to calmly answer, “My friend, one must make the distinction between the Church and the still-sinful Church administrators.”?

How do you think Jesus responds to misbehavior by Church administrators?

Does He say, “My friend, one must make the distinction between the Church and the still-sinful Church administrators.”?

No. What He said to the first Pope was this…

“Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Matthew 16:23. In my opinion, the boldface and italics more accurately portray Christ’s meaning than plaintext.

Those words are not there for our administrators to diffidently ignore.

They are there to warn them.

In my opinion, our bishops’ negligence has inadvertantly made them the “chief administrators” of the Great Falling Away for the last fifty years.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
It occurred to me that these words…
The RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).
…might be words that were spoken by a Mormon quoted elsewhere in the site. But just because the words were SPOKEN BY a Mormon doesn’t make the words ABOUT Mormons.

In fact, the words are about US, the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, the words talk about “polluting the original message” in the 3rd and 4th century – we gather (from the title of the thread) to suggest that the Great Falling Away or Great Apostasy occurred then, not now.

If I generate good evidence that the Great Apostasy is occurring now, not then, I have successfully discussed the title, and successfully refuted precisely the point disputed.
Click to expand...
Okay…I think I should step in here and clarify something that BR seems to have misunderstood. I have underlined the relevent parts I am speaking to.

I apologize if my initial post was less clear than it should’ve been, but I never expected anyone to come along with your particular take on things, since as you can see from my underlining the whole idea here was to post the quote from one of our resident non-denom evangelists and draw them here to discuss their historical evidence of their allegation that we went pagan or something virtually right from the start. Maggie is indeed correct when she points out that the Mormons believe this, though they are by no means the only ones today. It is a very common bash used against the church and I had hoped that some of its proponents would rise to the question in order to show that they are completely without evidence and so dissipate their already weak argument and (God willing) get them to look beyond the stuff they’ve been told and discover the truth.

Though I understand BR’s free thinking in his posts and believe that they may have some merit and relevance in another context…they are patently irrelevent to the historical nature of this particular thread.

Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, MaggieOH.

The title, or Post #1, define the theme of the thread.

I’ve looked at the title, and Post #1, several times, but the Mormons just aren’t mentioned.

Look:

TITLE: “THE GREAT APOSTASY”: HISTORY OR FICTION

**POST #1: **
The allegation has been made Quote:
**The RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).**

**This is typically called “The Great Apostasy” theory (generally espoused by JWs, SDA, and Pentecostals) and has no historical basis in fact whatsoever. The early church always responded to heresy and apostasy as is documented many many times in their writings, yet there is absolutely no evidence that the things the Catholic Church teaches ever came under such condemnation. In fact the writings of the early church fathers unanimously show that what they believed was indeed Catholic…like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and others. Dishonest anti-Catholic scholars use edited histories and false accusations to disparage the Catholic Church. I find it hard to understand how anyone can accuse us of following the traditions and teachings of men when they do it with their preachers all the time. Just because some preacher mounts his pulpit and says that something is so they accept it as if it’s Gospel. I also fail to understand why others cannot simply preach their “Gospel message” without disparaging other religions. Will their Gospel not stand without their attacks on other people? If not I would find those messages very seriously flawed. I will also point out that I have never heard such coming from the homilies in any Catholic Church I have ever attended. (Thanks Be To God!)

Pax vobiscum,
**
**__________________
*****Dominus meus et Deus meus! ***
**:gopray: **
Michael

I really am not trying to be difficult, but try as you might you won’t see Mormons mentioned there. JWs are Jehova’s Witnesses. SDA are Seventh Day Adventists. Pentacostals are Pentacostals.

It occurred to me that these words…
**The RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).**
…might be words that were spoken by a Mormon quoted elsewhere in the site. But just because the words were SPOKEN BY a Mormon doesn’t make the words ABOUT Mormons.

In fact, the words are about US, the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, the words talk about “polluting the original message” in the 3rd and 4th century – we gather (from the title of the thread) to suggest that the Great Falling Away or Great Apostasy occurred then, not now.

If I generate good evidence that the Great Apostasy is occurring now, not then, I have successfully discussed the title, and successfully refuted precisely the point disputed.

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
It is now obvious to me that you have never studied the claims put forward by the Mormons regarding Church Apostasy. What Joseph Smith claimed is that he was told by Jesus that the Church had aspostasized and that he (Joseph Smith) was chosen to lead the people and bring about a new Church.

This question is not about what is happening now, or even what happened two or three centuries ago. It is specifically about a claim that is made by anti-Catholics as they attempt to pull people into their particular cult.

Whether or not your claims have validity is open to question, and if you want to pursue them you do need to start a new thread because you are hijacking the purpose of this thread.

Maggie
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, MaggieOH.

The title, or Post #1, define the theme of the thread.

I’ve looked at the title, and Post #1, several times, but the Mormons just aren’t mentioned.

Look:

TITLE: “THE GREAT APOSTASY”: HISTORY OR FICTION

**POST #1: **
The allegation has been made Quote:
**The RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).**

**This is typically called “The Great Apostasy” theory (generally espoused by JWs, SDA, and Pentecostals) and has no historical basis in fact whatsoever. The early church always responded to heresy and apostasy as is documented many many times in their writings, yet there is absolutely no evidence that the things the Catholic Church teaches ever came under such condemnation. In fact the writings of the early church fathers unanimously show that what they believed was indeed Catholic…like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and others. Dishonest anti-Catholic scholars use edited histories and false accusations to disparage the Catholic Church. I find it hard to understand how anyone can accuse us of following the traditions and teachings of men when they do it with their preachers all the time. Just because some preacher mounts his pulpit and says that something is so they accept it as if it’s Gospel. I also fail to understand why others cannot simply preach their “Gospel message” without disparaging other religions. Will their Gospel not stand without their attacks on other people? If not I would find those messages very seriously flawed. I will also point out that I have never heard such coming from the homilies in any Catholic Church I have ever attended. (Thanks Be To God!)

Pax vobiscum,
**
**__________________
*****Dominus meus et Deus meus! ***
**:gopray: **
Michael

I really am not trying to be difficult, but try as you might you won’t see Mormons mentioned there. JWs are Jehova’s Witnesses. SDA are Seventh Day Adventists. Pentacostals are Pentacostals.

It occurred to me that these words…
**The RCC started polluting the original message in the 3rd and 4th century (some historians believe it to be a little earlier).

I believe they did not hold fast to the traditions they were taught both in written (Scripture) and oral (Creeds and other oral traditions).**
…might be words that were spoken by a Mormon quoted elsewhere in the site. But just because the words were SPOKEN BY a Mormon doesn’t make the words ABOUT Mormons.

In fact, the words are about US, the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, the words talk about “polluting the original message” in the 3rd and 4th century – we gather (from the title of the thread) to suggest that the Great Falling Away or Great Apostasy occurred then, not now.

If I generate good evidence that the Great Apostasy is occurring now, not then, I have successfully discussed the title, and successfully refuted precisely the point disputed.

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
It is now obvious to me that you have never studied the claims put forward by the Mormons regarding Church Apostasy. What Joseph Smith claimed is that he was told by Jesus that the Church had aspostasized and that he (Joseph Smith) was chosen to lead the people and bring about a new Church.

This question is not about what is happening now, or even what happened two or three centuries ago. It is specifically about a claim that is made by anti-Catholics as they attempt to pull people into their particular cult.

Whether or not your claims have validity is open to question, and if you want to pursue them you do need to start a new thread because you are hijacking the purpose of this thread.

Maggie
 
Church Militant:
Listen BibleReader,
I don’t know where you are but where I am “hoards” of people are coming into the Catholic Church, and more are on the way. Holy Church has endured for over 2,000 years and I have no doubt that she will endure til the end of time because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail.

I can satisfactorally answer all the questions and allegations that anyone has so far come up with and none of it means squat because the truth is still the truth, regardless of people, scandals, heresies, lies, and anything else that the devil can throw at us.
Click to expand...
Church Militant,
The time I have to visit the CA forums is quite limited, but As a 75 yr. old catachist for teenagers the time spent on this thread has been well spent. I have to commend your solid apologetics in this thread. The subject and its associated lack of study with an open mind to learn is heard so often from young adults as well as adults. What I have learned and re-learned is worth every moment of time spent. Thank you and the others for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
BakerBob
 
Gee Bob…Thanks!

(Jude 25) “To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages. Amen.”
 
I have a theory on how the ‘actual’ apostacy will take place and we deal with it’s unconscious manifestation in these forums . I couple of years ago I read the mormon bible. The picture began forming in my mind then. It involves several key elements of human psychological and religious experience that have to converge like the perfect storm. All of them in some way mentioned by the Apostles. The first is the natural effection of parents will grow cold. Increased relativistic thinking caused by the need to accept the ministry of distorted reality due to that cold maternal care. The denied rage towards the maternal object that is inherently denied ( who wants to hate their mom?) and inherently manifested as a projection attached onto some external object in it’s place. ( usually Mary for religious minded Christians and secret mom haters in general). The phenomenon of projection onto sciptures of one’s own life experience which increases in intensity and delusive power as the need of resolving what was lacking in infancy increases. The picture forming in my mind while reading the BoM was the man of sin would seem to fulfill the mormon scriptures he would seem to fulfill the 66 (hehe) books of the protestant bible. although the enterpretation that is projected onto them inherent in the pathology I described is the delusion not the text of course. The kicker is that as people enter into relationship with him and buy into the delusion and it would be quite the buy to be involved in events of that importance and be on the good side to boot. The involvement with Christ and seeing their own lives on the pages of the book of life is what they would experience. A powerfull delusion at any rate… Our best friends in this scene? Islam The Pope kisses the Koran. Am I nuts er what?
 
Hi, friends.

The Mormons were not the first to write about The Great Falling Away or Great Apostasy or however you wish to refer to it. We, the Catholic Church, were.

St. Paul, in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, in the Bible canon approved by our own Magisterium, first refers to it.

Paul uses the Greek version of the definite article “the” in the original Greek, before apostasia. As a consequence, the term is correctly translated “The Apostasy,” with the intent of suggesting the idea, “One heck of a great, big, giant, world-shaking apostasy.”

The term, and the concept, is not a Mormon invention.

Because our inspired Magisterium Church, by Pope Damasus I, adopted Paul’s prediction of The Apostasy into the Bible Canon, it functionally made Paul’s prediction of the coming Apostasy part of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching.

You must believe that a Great Apostasy will occur at some point, as a Catholic. It is Catholic doctrine before it is Mormon Doctrine or any other non-Catholic cult’s doctrine.
 
I will assume that this thread is about Mormon thinking.

In my opinion, our Mormon brothers and sisters are dead wrong. In my opinion, they are wrong about when it will occur. The Mormons are ignoring Paul’s own words, connecting it to the end of time…

**1 ****We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, ****2 ****not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. ****3 **Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first [the day of the Lord will not arrive]. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.
 
The apostasy is mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2. And I agree with BibleReader. We’re now living in the very last days.
 
40.png
burntpinktoast:
The apostasy is mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2. And I agree with BibleReader. We’re now living in the very last days.
Click to expand...
Hi burntpinktoast and http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/emoticons3/welcome1.gif
Yet the early church (as evident from the writings of St. John in Revelation and some of the ECF) believed that they were living in the End Times. I would say that if we are going to assess when the Great Apostasy/End Times is we would have to take it all in the context of all the passages of scripture concerning this topic, since people have been saying it’s the last days for over 2,000 years, which IMO is more accurate.

HOWEVER: I think I should clarify something.

I apologize if my initial post was less clear than it should’ve been. As you can see from a careful re-reading of this thread, the whole idea here was to post the quote from one of our resident non-denom evangelists and draw them here to discuss their historical evidence of their allegation that we went pagan or something virtually right from the start. Maggie is indeed correct when she points out that the Mormons believe this, though they are by no means the only ones today. It is a very common bash used against the church and I had hoped that some of its proponents would rise to the question in order to show that they are completely without evidence and so dissipate their already weak argument and (God willing) get them to look beyond the stuff they’ve been told and discover the truth. So far no one has appeared to support the allegation with facts…

Though I understand …Discussions of current apostasy are patently irrelevent to the historical nature of this particular thread.

Pax vobiscum,
 
I have been following this thread with great interest. In fact I have been an active “reader” of Catholic Answers for some time but have hesitated to be a member because of the fairly close mindedness that I find from both sides in the issues being discussed. Who wants to be assaulted from someone that doesn’t really care about your opinion but more about furthering their agenda. However it is killing me to be silent and so I became a member today.

I am a learner of all religions and do not know if Catholicism is the correct path when it comes to Christianity. Yet I can firmly hold to my belief that the Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to heavenly authority. I am sure many will agree on this point (with the exception of our Protestants readers of course). I classify most Christian churches that profess the Bible as the only needed authority for salvation as Protestants. This was the final doctrine (though not initially) of Martin Luther. However we can see that the Jewish authors of the Bible believed very much in an authority that transcends just written law.

Now the real question that we are viewing is whether the Catholic church has lost the heavenly authority or priesthood that it claims. I firmly believe that the Pope John Paul II can correctly trace his line of authority back to the early church. However I question if this line has electricity running through it?

I question the Church because from my studies I feel that it is quite possible that it is the Apostles that have authority to be the mouthpiece of God’s church. I feel that the New Testament has draw a clear distinction between the role of Apostles and Bishops. I see no evidence that has given the apostolic authority over to Bishops. If I am correct then it is easy to see how the CC is in apostasia and I feel that the burden of truth actually falls on the Church to prove that Bishops now have the authority of Apostles.

Which brings up the question of Joe Smith and the Mormon Church. If the Catholic Church is wrong then it is accurate to believe that there needs to be a restoration of authority. Is this the Mormon church? This is a whole new thread and I am fairly certain that most of you are of the same opinion to the answer to this question. At least I can say that it is nice that the Mormons don’t fall into the Protestant category. I like the question posed earlier in this thread about whether or not we are still in a Great Apostasy.

Well, these are my thoughts and I now lay them before you to be picked apart and thrown to the wind.

P.S. I must agree with everyone else concerning Bible Reader’s comments. BR, what you are writing about is not the apostasy which deals with the question of authority. It seems to me that you are more proving wickedness within the Church. There has been wickednes within the church since the early Christians. Your examples do not necessarily prove an Apostasy but rather the debaseness of human nature. I strongly encourage you to begin a thread that furthers your interests in this subject.

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” ~Plato
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top