What is the 'great apostasy' claimed by Mormons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IGotQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Stephen168:
Thank you!!! I love seeing how far I have come and how miraculous God is to take someone like me and bring him back to the LDS church!!!
 
Well, it was, despite what you think. And I said to a Catholic what you said to me, I would be banned
 
Catholics know Christ was saying just what he meant by “I am the Bread of Life,” “my blood,” ”my body” in the discourses in John 6:25-58. We know this by his reaction to the crowd’s reaction. Christ had two chances to explain the metaphor or hyperbole, IF that is what he was using; once during the discourse on the bread of life (John 6:41-42), and again during the discourse on the Eucharist (John 6:52). Finally, if it is just hyperbole, why was it such a hard teaching that almost all the disciples left him (John 6:60, John 6:66). We also realize in verse 63, he is no longer talking about his body; he doesn’t use the word ‘my’ and it would contradict verse 51, if he was talking about his body. All this has got to be explained away. Real Presence was taught by Christ, by Paul ( 1 Cor 11:23-29), and by the Church to this day.

“For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” (1 Cor 11:29)

Also Pauls teaching in 1 Cor 11:29 was repeated by Justin Martyr about 100 years later: “And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.”

And Irenaeus, “When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? ( [A.D. 189]).
 
TexanKnight said:
Well, it was, despite what you think. And I said to a Catholic what you said to me, I would be banned
Click to expand...
23 posts in one day from a guy who says he’s an attorney.
Whatever, I’ll let others judge that as the mod said to stay on topic.
Speaking of which, you’ve mentioned being ‘banned’ on several occasions. You do know reporting mod activities is against forum rules., right? Why don’t you just stay on the topic and answer the OP in the most intelligent and appropriate way you can.
I mean, you say you are an attorney…
 
With regard to Texas Knight you went off topic attacking my Church. I simply gave you an honest opinion.
 
BTW, TK. The first eight posts in this thread gave the answer to the OPs question as near as I can tell. One was a Mormon who answered it just fine and has not been banned.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
With regard to Texas Knight you went off topic attacking my Church. I simply gave you an honest opinion.
Click to expand...
You did fine. Maybe he’ll be back and try to answer the OP.
In the meantime I gotta run over to the parish for my anti-depressant fix.
😃
 
Son_of_Niall said:
You did fine. Maybe he’ll be back and try to answer the OP.
In the meantime I gotta run over to the parish for my anti-depressant fix.
😃
Click to expand...
Religion is very sensitive topic regardless what your beliefs are antidepressants might not always be a bad idea during a religious debate or religious dialogue. I did see the post and I was very confused about that one
 
adamhovey1988 said:
Religion is very sensitive topic regardless what your beliefs are antidepressants might not always be a bad idea during a religious debate or religious dialogue. I did see the post and I was very confused about that one
Click to expand...
Sorry. Post 89. He says it was a typo. But I can’t figure out what he was trying to spell that came out “antidepressants”. It just struck many of us as rather funny. 😉
 
Micosil said:
Let me ask you something. Joseph Smith arrived on the scene in the first half of the 1800s. OK. That’s about 1800 years after Christ.

With regards to Jesus, we have His Apostles, who ate, slept, drank, with him and spent three years in His company, absorbing His teachings. After that, we have documents like the Didache from the 70s, still in the Apostolic Age. We have the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, some of whom personally knew the Apostles and reiterated what we already see in Sacred Scripture and additionally transmitted the oral tradition that the Apostles knew (the Apostles’ culture was very Jewish, so an oral tradition developing wouldn’t be odd by any means). All of this is retained in the Catholic Church, as well as the other ancient Apostolic churches not in communion with Rome that have legitimate Apostolic Succession.

All of these things seem to be logically and historically connected to Jesus – when then, did a Great Apostasy occur? 🤷 From a historical point of view, it makes no sense to speak of a Great Apostasy.
Click to expand...
Nor from a theological point of view as well, 1800 years of proposed lack of grace and salvation coming from a church that God Himself set up? Really?
 
iepuras said:
Do you really want me to go into detail about the failed prophecies, teachings and leadership of the LDS church?
Click to expand...
My gosh…we could have a field day with LDS AND Catholic mistakes…the difference is, you could say what you want about the LDS Church…I would get banned if I started the pages of things about the Catholic Church. So what is the point/
Is it best for us to throw rocks at each or bond together on what we have in common?
 
Son_of_Niall said:
23 posts in one day from a guy who says he’s an attorney.
Whatever, I’ll let others judge that as the mod said to stay on topic.
Speaking of which, you’ve mentioned being ‘banned’ on several occasions. You do know reporting mod activities is against forum rules., right? Why don’t you just stay on the topic and answer the OP in the most intelligent and appropriate way you can.
I mean, you say you are an attorney…
Click to expand...
are you hinting I am lying?
 
Micosil said:
It sure struck me as funny. Heck, I’m still laughing. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
me too…lol…I wish I could remember what I was typing…it was early (here in Utah) it was between my 5-mile walk and going to work…
 
OK. Let me pose this (and hope my auto-correct does not mess me up)

Let’s say you are the huge big Boss of an organization. You leave People in control. In time, you find out that the folks you left in charge began to sell things they should not sell to make themselves wealthy. Let’s say your leaders begin to terrorize people. They start wars. They have disputes about who is in charge that cause horrible divisions in the organization. They wrongfully imprison those who disagree with them. People begin to lose faith in your organization. You have tried to correct them to no avail. Do you continue to leave them in authority or do you withdraw your authority?
 
TexanKnight said:
OK. Let me pose this (and hope my auto-correct does not mess me up)

Let’s say you are the huge big Boss of an organization. You leave People in control. In time, you find out that the folks you left in charge began to sell things they should not sell to make themselves wealthy. Let’s say your leaders begin to terrorize people. They start wars. They have disputes about who is in charge that cause horrible divisions in the organization. They wrongfully imprison those who disagree with them. People begin to lose faith in your organization. You have tried to correct them to no avail. Do you continue to leave them in authority or do you withdraw your authority?
Click to expand...
These sorts of discussions were already handled during the Donatist heresy. If a priest or bishop, under the duress of torture apostatized, Donatism claimed that the priest’s sacraments were no longer valid. But that isn’t how sacraments, that isn’t how grace works – in the words of St. Paul, “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” A priest’s holiness, or lack thereof in this case, is unrelated to efficacy of the grace of the sacraments he dispenses.

You could even likewise say, “Well, see, Judas was chosen by Jesus but he still betrayed Him. Why then should I listen to the rest of the Apostles?” 🤷 Sin was, is, and will be a part of the human condition until the very last human being dies – some of those humans happen to be priests and bishops of the Catholic Church … And some them also happen to be ministers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as well. Food for thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top