Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
That’s what I meant many protestants would not agree with the LDS definition of apostasy as a loss of priesthood. Which is what I’ve been told “The Apostasy” was.
- Status
M
mfbukowski
Guest
First off, it doesn’t matter if it’s a different view of the apostasy, they still think the church is apostate
Secondly, If they don’t believe in the priesthood in the first place, surely the church then was apostate from the first “priest” in their point of view.
Strange logic
You need to get those griffins out of your eves. Kinda like bats in the belfry?
P
paul_c
Guest
I find myself in agreement with Bukowski. I believe that all the non-Catholic Churches have to believe that the Catholic Church lost the faith, otherwise how could they possibly justify leaving.
However, I think the linchpin for most Protestants as with Luther, was not the view of the priesthood. I think that was a required justification that they had to make when they left the Church. I think the real linchipin was their view of Salvation. Most Protestants believe that faith alone is sufficient for Salvation, while the Catholic Church is adamant that Faith must be validated by good works, otherwise faith is dead. So if you think about this a minute, the Protestant claim is that the Catholics** ADDED** an extra requirement for salvation that they feel Jesus and the Apostles never required. So the apostacy wasn’t that the Church deviated from the faith, per se, it was that they became more stringent than God. (Nevermind the counter arguments that are going on in other threads to demonstrate that Jesus said in the Sermon on the mount that only those that do his father’s will will achieve salvation).
In any case, contrast this with the list that Bukowski gave us a few days ago on the Mormon View of Apostasy:
Originally Posted by mfbukowski
Eucharist as real presence/ transubstantiation
loss of baptism for the dead
loss of temple ordinances
The assumption of Mary
Immaculate conception
Limbo /invincible ignorance
purgatory
infant baptism
sprinkling baptism
the mass
confession
veneration of saints
need for interecession
indulgences
Like the Protestant view of Salvation by Faith alone, every one of these issues can either be supported by scripture or tradition or eliminated because they aren’t really catholic teaching (like the “need” for intercession and limbo, which is a theoligical discussion but not a doctrine that you will find in the catechism).
In any case, the weakness of the entire apostasy argument is that there is no clearcut concensus on what the apostasy really was and even the suggestions can be easily refuted. I will go through some of them in the next post, just for the execise.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Well I think it’s strange logic to cite the idea of a Protestant belief in apostasy.to back-up LDS belief in it when the same Protestants are going to believe you all are in apostasy as well.
I was sure I’d read your complaints about this kind of comment when directed at you, I must have you confused with someone else, Snow maybe?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabreil of 12;
Ok, mfbukowski; lets get this straight? Revelations ceased with the last living apostle John the beloved of Jesus period.
The Catholic church With the successors of these apostles of Jesus, which you call the Holy Magesterium have been entrusted with the original christian teachings and writings these past 2000 years. That said, according to your words “No one could have a different interpretation” of the scriptures listed in my previous post, not even from an angel according to scripture.
So how is it that your founder “a man” Joseph Smith, can invent or introduce a new teaching and another gospel 1900 years later who introduced “Congregationalism” and “Mason” attributes to the LDS religion?
When scripture clearly indicates to the body of Jesus Christ, that many false teachers and false prophets will come teaching and passing judgment on the Catholic church about Sabbaths, geneaologies, visions, another angel teaching, another gospel teaching of Jesus Christ, this sounds like the book of the LDS church which proudly proclaims “another testament of Jesus Christ”.
Your LDS and other adventist religions fill the bill of these warnings from the original apostles of Jesus, of whom you are trying desperately to distort first century Christian teachings from scripture.
The scriptures are not my interpretations of scripture, you just read the scriptures at face value, That is probably why you mistakenly thought they were my interpretation, because they convict your new so called christian theology.
What I dont understand from LDS thinking: is why would you believe the church Jesus founded disappeared from the earth, from a man made assumption of a total apostacy?
P
paul_c
Guest
MF Bukowski,
Here are professional apoligists answers to your questions. I hope you take the time to read them and become convinced that there was no apostasy in the Catholic Church
Here are professional apoligists answers to your questions. I hope you take the time to read them and become convinced that there was no apostasy in the Catholic Church
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp
This is an obscure statement but if you mean why don’t Catholics follow the Jewish rules: that can be readily found in both Acts chapter 15 and Galatians chapter 2
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118044&highlight=limbo
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3099&highlight=scriptures+purgatory
[catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp]](http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp])
I don’t know what you meant by mass. The order of the mass is a church practice not a doctrine. I’ve already discussed the real presence.
catholic.com/library/Confession.asp
catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp]
catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
okay. mf bukowski, I’ve answered all of them with official apologetic answers. Please take the time to read them. Hopefully it will be good for your soul…
Stephen168
New member
Stephen168
New member
But What was the Apostasy?
What is the Mormon definition of the Great Apostasy?
When did the Great Apostasy happen?
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I attempted mentioning this logical fallacy before ~ without a cite. I’m not sure that logic and critical thinking are even mentioned in schools anymore tho’ so good luck with your attempt!
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Well you know what Paul? I appreciate your interest in a genuine dialogue. This is the last thread I am on on this forum, as I have decided that it is all literally a waste of time.
But if you are interested, I would like to carry on WITH YOU and any others who are interested in maintaining a reasonable tone.
I confess I tend to get carried away and angry with stupid comments but you have always been reasonable, and I apologize if I have included you in any of my less charitable remarks.
I don’t really have the time, as I guess you don’t either to get into great scholarly detail on each point, but a way to proceed might be for me to answer your post point by point perhaps one a day or so until we get to some conclusion which will probably be only agreeing to disagree.
REAL PRESENCE: I read the article, and frankly, this is a grey area for me. I cannot conceive that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of the savior. I just cannot believe it. I will go so far as to say that we might even want to “speak as if” it is his literal body and blood with the understanding that is really just a powerful symbol. When I read what the ECF’s were saying, in some cases I think what they say could be interpreted that they are taking it that way, and in other instances it seems they mean it literally. But what is odd is that I don’t actually disagree with what any of those quotes actually say about the eucharist if we make clear that they are talking about the eucharist “as if” it were literally body and blood.
I have even taught lessons and given talks in my church where I have said things like “In the sacrament, we take the bread, representing Jesus body, into our bodies and he becomes part of our bodies, and when we do so, in our sacrament service, we are there as the body of Christ, so he is part of us and we are part of him - we are inside him and he is inside us” . That is what I believe.
Again, from my point of view, if we are to say that the ECF’s actually meant that the eucharist was the real presence, and I think that it is clear that in at least several instances they do mean that, I would say that they were mistaken.
I think that the literal interpretation is erroneous, and clearly it is not only Mormons who belive that, but most protestants as well.
Even if you look at the bread of life discourse itself, (John 6) Jesus talks about eating the mana vs eating the eucharist, and says that those who ate the mana died, but those who partake of the eucharist will live forever.
This is clearly literally not the case. Even popes die.
So this must be taken figuratively.
The whole discourse shifts back and forth and is a play on spiritual meaning vs literal meaning- Jesus says he is the bread of life come down from heaven, and is asked “But aren’t you Joseph’s son?” – the intent is not to be taken literally. He was Joseph’s son, but also God’s son. He was not bread, he was flesh. Bread does not come from heaven. So this part is figurative.
We can go line by line if you like, but I wanted to get something back to you.
Next post will be on baptism for the dead unless you want to discuss this one further.
And realize, that I do not expect this to make any difference to you other than to give you my personal perspective on why I believe what I believe. I have no expectation that it will affect your position in any way, because if you want to believe as you do, it is reasonable to do so. Belief is just that, not knowledge. You believe what you want, just give me the same privilege.
And for the others, I really want to only respond to Paul at this point. You are on ignore figuratively. I will read what you say, but it is unlikely I will comment.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Gee Paul, lucky YOU! 
Let the record reflect that yet another Mormon has come to this forum with a claim of some “Great Apostasy”, which is the foundation upon which their claim of “Restoration” rests, and yet is now departing without providing even a scintilla of evidence that the “Great Apostasy” actually occurred.
That’s because there never was one of course and the Church is still here today just as Jesus promised.
I can’t help but wonder about the Mormon fascination with Catholicism. Perhaps they know, in their hearts, that the Catholic Church really is the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, but they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge it? For some reason, known only to them, it’s just too difficult to face? Perhaps we’ll never know, and yet they keep coming…
Let the record reflect that yet another Mormon has come to this forum with a claim of some “Great Apostasy”, which is the foundation upon which their claim of “Restoration” rests, and yet is now departing without providing even a scintilla of evidence that the “Great Apostasy” actually occurred.
That’s because there never was one of course and the Church is still here today just as Jesus promised.
I can’t help but wonder about the Mormon fascination with Catholicism. Perhaps they know, in their hearts, that the Catholic Church really is the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, but they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge it? For some reason, known only to them, it’s just too difficult to face? Perhaps we’ll never know, and yet they keep coming…
P
paul_c
Guest
Bukowski,
I am happy to continue the discourse. I understand that I unloaded a lot on you and will take time to discuss all the points.
I also understand how frustrating it can be when people are challenging your beliefs.
The main thing most people miss about the real presence is that by partaking of the Eucharist, we are accepting Jesus within us. This is very powerful and more than something simply symbolic. When you take it as a symbol only, you fail to recognize the spiritual aspect of the eucharist.
I also hope you recognize that there is direct linkage to the scriptures on this point. In fact, according to St. John’s Gospel, Jesus alienated many of his disciples when bringing forth this concept, which could of course not be understood in its totality until after the resurrection. So the belief in this point could not have been the apostasy…
P.s. I am pleased that you are taking the time to go through this.
Paul
I am happy to continue the discourse. I understand that I unloaded a lot on you and will take time to discuss all the points.
I also understand how frustrating it can be when people are challenging your beliefs.
The main thing most people miss about the real presence is that by partaking of the Eucharist, we are accepting Jesus within us. This is very powerful and more than something simply symbolic. When you take it as a symbol only, you fail to recognize the spiritual aspect of the eucharist.
I also hope you recognize that there is direct linkage to the scriptures on this point. In fact, according to St. John’s Gospel, Jesus alienated many of his disciples when bringing forth this concept, which could of course not be understood in its totality until after the resurrection. So the belief in this point could not have been the apostasy…
P.s. I am pleased that you are taking the time to go through this.
Paul
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Don’t worry about it. It happens to the best of us. We are all only human, right?
I concur. There are no quotes from the ECF about the Eucharist that read like quotes from the Catechism (I believe because our understanding of the Eucharist has developed and become enriched). We can, however, compare the ECF’s understanding of the Eucharist with those of Protestants (and even the LDS). In other words, which church’s understanding of the Eucharist is closer to a genuine organic development of said belief?
Ignatius 105AD:
I have trouble reading this in anything but literal terms.
Justin Martyr 160AD:
Notice that the word ‘transmutation’ is used here implying that some physical change is actually occurring. Justin Martyr (at the very least) is speaking of the Eucharist as much more than figurative flesh and blood.
And that belief is strikingly similar to Catholic belief (save for the obvious reference to symbolism). I must ask you however if your church fosters a similar belief?
I know that when I was a Priest in the LDS fold, we would take the extra bread pieces and either feed them to the ducks (we had a duck pond next to our ward meetinghouse) or us Aaronic priesthood holders would take the extra pieces along with us to Sunday School and Priesthood Meeting for a snack. Now I’m not trying to imply that this is common practice in the LDS church (after all this is just an anecdote from when I was a 16 year old punk) however we were never reprimanded for sacrilege (which is what I would expect from an ecclesiastical body that believed as you do, namely that we should speak of and treat the Sacrament as if it were Jesus’ precious flesh and blood.
Most certainly a possibility. We Catholics (I know I’m speaking prematurely) even disagree with certain ECFs on certain matters. These men certainly did not carry the charism of infallibility.
But how does this appeal to popularity help advance our discussion here? I could easily counter this with the fact that Catholics and Orthodox agree on the Real Presence and Catholics and Orthodox make up the majority of Christians worldwide, ergo the majority of Christians believe as we do concerning the Eucharist! Obviously this doesn’t get us any closer to what is actually true.
Not dying and living forever are two different things. I’m sure as Christians we all agree that the notion of eternal life is literal and not “symbolic”.
Where you see symbolism, we see foreshadowing, and Tertullian seems to agree:
Tertullian 198AD:
<<>>
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
<<>>
Can’t wait
Understood and agreed.
I know you addressed this post to Paul, but felt compelled to answer anyway despite fear of being ignored. You and I haven’t spoken much so I can’t see any reason you would ignore me, but I’ll wait and see.
Stephen168
New member
Logic and critical thinking were required in my undergraduate degree. So I did find it in school but not so much in Mormonism.I attempted mentioning this logical fallacy before ~ without a cite. I’m not sure that logic and critical thinking are even mentioned in schools anymore tho’ so good luck with your attempt!
I believe to have an honest discussion about anything, one much first define what they are talking about. So not only have the mormons never provided proof of the ‘Great Apostasy”, they have refused to even define it. Every dodge makes me smile.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I’m glad it was required for your undergraduate degree. In my time (I’m a Grandma now) it was taught in high school… It’s too bad that we have lost so much in the education system in this country. I could tell you stories, from my business pursuits, that would curl your hair!
I agree that in order to have an honest discussion, and a productive one as well, you have to start with a basic set of terms that everyone understands. Without that as a reference, everyone just talks past each other, and at times “discussions” can digress, or degenerate or simply get out of hand. That does no one any good.
As one of my signature quotes indicates, I enjoy listening to Fr. Rutler, who presents wide-ranging discussions and draws together a variety of ideas into one unified whole. One of my favorite programs involves, in part, a discussion of the thought process itself, and of dialogue with a view to finding “truth”. In that discussion he touches on those things that result when truth is not the goal. One of those results is opinion. He also discusses the behavior and tactics of those for whom truth is not the goal and it typically involves noise because one time-tested technique for obscuring truth is to shout it down.
Now, am I saying that in this discussion of the so-called “apostasy” that anyone was simply spouting opinion and avoiding truth? or that they were shouting or otherwise making noise? No, I’m not saying that. But I do see a pattern with the Mormons who bring up this subject that there is lots of opinion, but very little fact-seeking or truth-seeking, at least that’s what I’ve seen in my experiences with this subject on this forum.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I agree and recognize its power.
"When you take it as a symbol only, you fail to recognize the spiritual aspect of the eucharist."
This is hard to respond to. I think that recognizing the spiritual aspect is just exactly what I am doing. But the aspect is SPIRITUAL. It’s like the quote “whenever two or more are gathered in my name, I am there” or words to that effect. He IS there spiritually.
Just not in the piece of bread.
To me it is very close to the same, but I am sure you would disagree.
Anyway, know that I think I understand what you are saying, and I think I am saying something very similar, and I think experientially the same. That is, I am saying that I think my experience is as close to yours as two experiences of anything can be. I can’t know what you see when you see “red” or what love feels like to you. But I do know what love is and what red is. We may describe it differently.
I know you believe your experience is “more” to some degree, and I don’t think we will change your opinion on that one.
Onward! I get busy on weekends, but will be back!
P
paul_c
Guest
I don’t know that my experience is any more or less than yours. As you correctly note, its impossible to know what someone else feels. Perhaps the experience is very much the same but is described differently. Would you agree, then that the celebration of the eucharist is not the apostasy?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Thought I knew you from that old “Great Apostsy Flaw” thing that went to 900 posts-- thats partially why I am so burned out on this stuff, but ok no problem you seem like a reasonable person!
Yes but the fact that the GNOSTICS who were at least partially heretical (but in my opinion pretty right on-- they had rites which some could see as similar to our temple rites – see Secret Mark–but I won’t discuss this further-- just know that for Mormons secret Mark has a very strong possibility for being true)-- any way the fact that they didn’t believe the Eucharist was body and blood to me just shows or could show that they were LESS heretical than Ignatius.
Yes I know.
But I have big problems with this transmutation stuff as being heretical. (meaning it IS heretical) Where is that in the scriptures? It is really a pagan greek concept to me. In fact “hoc est enim corpus meum” became corrupted into “hoccus poccus” meaning magic words which transform stuff. Bunnies into doves or whatever.
That whole line is what Aquinas tried to prove with his transubstantiation which just doesnt work philosophically. There is no such thing as “substance” which can have it’s “appearances” changed. Strictly neo-Platonic stuff that never made it out of the 10th century philosophically and now only Catholic philosophers go there, I think to help them rationalize this very problem.
That doesn’t make it false, just not credible to me at all.
So my take on your quotes are that by 160 AD Justin Martyr was apostate, but in 105 the Gnostics were only partially apostate, which is what one would expect in a situation where the apostasy started in the first century.
As far as the bread and the ducks goes, we believe that the sacrament bread is symbolic of the savior. What I was mentioning to Paul is how it is SPIRITUALLY understood as being “a remembrance of the savior”. But it’s just bread.
We don’t get into reverencing any objects. My wife rides the train to work and she wanted to study the scriptures. But they were too heavy. So she bought a $2 bible and tore it up and would take only a few chapters at a time with her so she could read it easily on the train. She was shocked at all the horrified looks and comments she would get from people who were horrified that she would tear up a bible!
To me, it gets a little superstitious to see it otherwise. I don’t mean to offend, but it is supposedly voodoo practice to make a doll of someone and then pretend that the doll is actually that person.
Suppose I want to destroy hate. So I write the word “hate” on a piece of paper. That word is a symbolic representation of hate.
Then I tear up the paper, and think I have destroyed hate.
That is the difference between what is a symbol and what is real. Destroying a symbol, or more accurately in the case of the sacrament bread-- what WAS a symbol a few minutes ago, and is not even a symbol anymore-- does nothing irreverent to the original object of veneration.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
LOL! Really good one!
You caught me out of left field on that one! I am still chuckling about that!
Hey if we are going on experiences, I think that Catholicism and Mormonism is about the same. It is doctrine we are discussing. I frankly have no problem acknowledging that Catholic eucharist is about the same as the Mormon. But I think you will get into trouble with your catholic buddies on that one.
I think that the Holy Spirit can equally inspire Catholics and Mormons and that they could in principle be having the same experience. No problem with that at all.
But while we are all singing kumbaya together, we just have to not say anything about what we are doing. It is the words that get in the way.
I have believed that from the beginning, and is one of the reasons I converted. The experience is the same.
But words and the way we think about things are important. And that is where we go haywire.
I will even almost give up purgatory was similar to spirit prison if you want. But conceptually they are quite different. But both give us reverence for our dead, and the opportunity to serve them in some way. Lighting a candle and doing a baptism for someone who has died to me are very very similar spiritually.
Dude, you are cooler than I thought!
- Status