What Was the Apostasy?

[RebeccaJ]

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.

This is a Catholic teaching, that you are teaching to LDS. You will find nowhere in mormon teaching, doctrinal or not, that the bread becomes part of your body, and so you are part of Jesus and him of us. This is only found in the Holy Eucharist of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…the catholic churches (little c).

It is wishful thinking on your part that it exists in mormonism. And more, I’d say, your soul longing for the Real Presence.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

He is talking about Salvation. Which we believe is not figurative.

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.

They aren’t believing what Jesus is telling them. They do not believe He came down from heaven. They have known him all of his life as the son of Joseph.

They turned their backs and left because they could not accept what Jesus was telling them. He was literally saying, EAT my flesh, as in “to gnaw”.

 

[mfbukowski]

This is a Catholic teaching, that you are teaching to LDS. You will find nowhere in mormon teaching, doctrinal or not, that the bread becomes part of your body, and so you are part of Jesus and him of us. This is only found in the Holy Eucharist of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…the catholic churches (little c).

It is wishful thinking on your part that it exists in mormonism. And more, I’d say, your soul longing for the Real Presence.

I believe in a “real spiritual” presence. Christ said “do this in remembrance of me” (which is something someone says who is NOT going to physically present) and also again the notion of when 2 or more are gathered in his name, etc. But I disagree it is not found in Mormonism. I’ll look it up. I got it from somewhere I am trying to remember where…

Dang. Now you got me talking to 3 people? (____) expletive deleted

 

[mfbukowski]

This is a Catholic teaching, that you are teaching to LDS. You will find nowhere in mormon teaching, doctrinal or not, that the bread becomes part of your body, and so you are part of Jesus and him of us. This is only found in the Holy Eucharist of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…the catholic churches (little c).

It is wishful thinking on your part that it exists in mormonism. And more, I’d say, your soul longing for the Real Presence.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.2 - p.5, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853

When we eat of this bread, and drink of this water, do we eat the literal flesh of the Son of God? Were I a priest of the Roman Catholic church, and had been trained from my youth in that faith, I might believe fully, with my whole heart, that my prayers would transform the bread of the eucharist into the literal flesh, and the wine into the literal blood, of the Son of God. But notwithstanding my faith on that matter, the bread and wine would be just the same in their component parts, and would administer to the mortal systems of men, or of beasts, the same amount and kind of nutriment that the same quantity of unblessed bread and wine would. If bread and wine are blessed, dedicated, and sanctified, through the sincerity and faith of the people of God, then the Spirit of the Lord, through the promise, rests upon the individuals who thus keep His commandments, and are diligent in obeying the ordinances of the house of God. So I understand all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.

Yes, Brigham Young.

You add this to these references for the body of christ, and it is not difficult to see how this is also a mormon perspective

scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=body+of+christ&help=&wo=checked&search=body+of+christ&iw=nt&tx=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1

Especially 1 Cor 10

16 The cup of bblessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

and

Romans 12: 5

5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another

It’s just biblical that’s all.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Yes one logical fallacy after another.

And they would rather talk about anything else but the subject of the thread after they start it.

 

[paul_c]

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!

Just remember, the point of this discussion is to show you that there was no apostasy. You brought up the real presence in the eucharist as one of the apostasies. Now you are saying that the Mormon understanding is very close to the Catholic one and that your experience in Mormonism was almost identical to what you experienced as a Catholic. So I can only assume that we have now crossed this item off as what drove God to restart his church with Joseph Smith and the reason you chose mormonism over Catholicism… Am I correct?

 

[onenow1]

:
“One who practices apostasy.”
Note: Mention of “the Church” in the following statements reference the Catholic Church.

What makes an apostate?

1. Apostates reject teachings of the Church. James 2:10, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa, 2,2,5,3.
   If anyone rejects one teaching of the Church which Jesus Christ founded, he/she rejects it all.
   Martin Luther and his cohorts rejected teachings of the Church, and their followers still do.
2. Apostates reject the authority of the Church. Matthew 18:15-18.
   Martin Luther and his allies rejected the authority of the Church which Jesus Christ founded.
3. Apostates believe the Church is a democracy, when in fact it is a hierarchy. Since when does the body tell the head what to do? The head always tells the body what to do, and the Head of the Catholic Church, which is His Body, is Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:22-23.
   Martin Luther believed he could tell the head what to do as in a democracy.
4. Apostates reject obedience to the superiors of the Church. Hebrews 13:17.
   Martin Luther rejected obedience to his superiors, the Pope and the Bishops of the Church.
5. Apostates invent their own teaching, based solely upon their own personal opinions, and not upon doctrinal truth.
   Martin Luther invented much of his own teaching, based solely upon his personal opinions.
6. Apostates reject many parts of Holy Scripture and strive to change it to suit their teaching.
   Martin Luther rejected many parts of Holy Scripture, and both added to and subtracted from the Holy Word of GOD in a vain attempt to make it conform to his teaching.
7. Apostates in criticizing the Word of GOD are in fact setting themselves up as critics of GOD Himself.
   Martin Luther is guilty of criticizing the Word of GOD by removing Old Testament books from the Bible and writing against several New Testament books such as James, and Revelation.
   "And the LORD said to Job: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” Job 40:1-2

---

---

So you see? The so-called “Great Apostasy” has already come to pass.
Bible Christians and Protestants who have no documentation, no firm date, and no names whatsoever to “prove” their false charge against the Catholic Church, surely must realize by now that every time they point their fingers at someone else, they have three of them pointing at themselves. Try it and see.​

---

�
Written by Bob Stanley, July 3, 2002
Updated January 11, 2007

Peace,onenow1

 

[mfbukowski]

Just remember, the point of this discussion is to show you that there was no apostasy. You brought up the real presence in the eucharist as one of the apostasies. Now you are saying that the Mormon understanding is very close to the Catholic one and that your experience in Mormonism was almost identical to what you experienced as a Catholic. So I can only assume that we have now crossed this item off as what drove God to restart his church with Joseph Smith and the reason you chose mormonism over Catholicism… Am I correct?

Well this is a major logical jump. To say that a few catholics on an internet board have very similar experiences at sacrament/eucharist time to one Mormon who used to be catholic himself, and using that to say that there was no apostasy is such a jump I think no one would draw that conclusion.

Are you willing to say the mormon sacrament is the same as your eucharist? Are you speaking for your church when you do so? I think not! I KNOW not!

And there is a very big difference between what you call the “real presence” and what we are discussing here.

You raise an interesting point, and I think it is a good one that the experience itself is the same at the time of the experience, at least for me.

But it is important to me to speak clearly about these issues, and the Catholic BELIEF is so different, I could never say I believed in the “real presence” the way the Catholics mean the term.

Jesus is symbolically present. Period. Not actually present. And certainly not “body blood soul and divinity”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

:
“One who practices apostasy.”
Note: Mention of “the Church” in the following statements reference the Catholic Church.

What makes an apostate?

1. Apostates reject teachings of the Church. James 2:10, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa, 2,2,5,3.
   If anyone rejects one teaching of the Church which Jesus Christ founded, he/she rejects it all.
   Martin Luther and his cohorts rejected teachings of the Church, and their followers still do.
2. Apostates reject the authority of the Church. Matthew 18:15-18.
   Martin Luther and his allies rejected the authority of the Church which Jesus Christ founded.
3. Apostates believe the Church is a democracy, when in fact it is a hierarchy. Since when does the body tell the head what to do? The head always tells the body what to do, and the Head of the Catholic Church, which is His Body, is Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:22-23.
   Martin Luther believed he could tell the head what to do as in a democracy.
4. Apostates reject obedience to the superiors of the Church. Hebrews 13:17.
   Martin Luther rejected obedience to his superiors, the Pope and the Bishops of the Church.
5. Apostates invent their own teaching, based solely upon their own personal opinions, and not upon doctrinal truth.
   Martin Luther invented much of his own teaching, based solely upon his personal opinions.
6. Apostates reject many parts of Holy Scripture and strive to change it to suit their teaching.
   Martin Luther rejected many parts of Holy Scripture, and both added to and subtracted from the Holy Word of GOD in a vain attempt to make it conform to his teaching.
7. Apostates in criticizing the Word of GOD are in fact setting themselves up as critics of GOD Himself.
   Martin Luther is guilty of criticizing the Word of GOD by removing Old Testament books from the Bible and writing against several New Testament books such as James, and Revelation.
   "And the LORD said to Job: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.” Job 40:1-2

---

---

So you see? The so-called “Great Apostasy” has already come to pass.
Bible Christians and Protestants who have no documentation, no firm date, and no names whatsoever to “prove” their false charge against the Catholic Church, surely must realize by now that every time they point their fingers at someone else, they have three of them pointing at themselves. Try it and see.​

---

�
Written by Bob Stanley, July 3, 2002
Updated January 11, 2007

Peace,onenow1

finally somebody spoke truth.

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[MelanieAnne]

I find it interesting to read the comments of those who say it is not possible for Jesus to be present in the Eucharist “body, blood, soul and divinity”. Yet those same people would probably say that God created the world and all that is in it.

Having already created the world, wouldn’t transubstantiation be child’s play, relatively speaking, for God? So isn’t denial of transubstantiation essentially the same as denial of the omnipotence of God?

I submit such denial stems from the fact that they cannot see it with their own eyes and/or cannot imagine how it could possibly be done. That’s where Faith comes in. It’s also where Trust comes in ~ trust that Jesus meant what He said in this case. It’s not figurative, and there is no doubt of that in the context of the scriptures. Those that understand the words of the scriptures as well as the context cannot arrive at any other conclusion.

 

[Snow]

I find it interesting to read the comments of those who say it is not possible for Jesus to be present in the Eucharist “body, blood, soul and divinity”. Yet those same people would probably say that God created the world and all that is in it.

Well it’s easy enough to check - run some DNA on it and see it it is bread or human flesh.

Having already created the world, wouldn’t transubstantiation be child’s play, relatively speaking, for God? So isn’t denial of transubstantiation essentially the same as denial of the omnipotence of God?

Having a little trouble with our logic tonight?

Because God can turn bread into flesh does not mean that God desires to turn bread into flesh.

 

[paul_c]

Well this is a major logical jump. To say that a few catholics on an internet board have very similar experiences at sacrament/eucharist time to one Mormon who used to be catholic himself, and using that to say that there was no apostasy is such a jump I think no one would draw that conclusion.

Are you willing to say the mormon sacrament is the same as your eucharist? Are you speaking for your church when you do so? I think not! I KNOW not!

And there is a very big difference between what you call the “real presence” and what we are discussing here.

You raise an interesting point, and I think it is a good one that the experience itself is the same at the time of the experience, at least for me.

But it is important to me to speak clearly about these issues, and the Catholic BELIEF is so different, I could never say I believed in the “real presence” the way the Catholics mean the term.

Jesus is symbolically present. Period. Not actually present. And certainly not “body blood soul and divinity”.

Look, I’m not asking you to take a position for the LDS church. I’m asking you to address your own beliefs. And more to the point, the charge you laid on the Catholic Church is that it apostasized. What I showed you was that there was scriptural basis for the real presence of the eucharist. Whether you believe in the real presence is actually immaterial in this discussion. What is important is that the Catholic belief in it is consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ.

In the end, either the Catholics or the Mormon’s apostasized. Both can’t be the real apostolic church. To me, its clear that the Catholic church, which can draw a direct lineage back to the apostles is a much better bet to be the true church than the Mormon church, which claims that the Apostolic faith lay dormant for 1800 years before being reinstated through Joseph Smith.

In any case, lets go through the points you brought up one at a time. I’ve shown you that all of them are scripturally based. You may or may not agree. In either case, I’ve done my best to show you the way back to Catholicism, the one true faith. You can do with it as you will.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But What was the Apostasy?
What is the Mormon definition of the Great Apostasy?
When did the Great Apostasy happen?

Good luck Stephen, No one in history is able to get a truthful answer from the LDS church because there is none. Unless you take “educated Rhetoric” as your proof of history instead of history itself?

IF you can get a straight answer from a Mormon of when and where this so called “total Apostacy” occurred, that would make world news. They dont even know? because there never was one.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That’s right Gabriel. There is no drive toward TRUTH (or LOGIC for that matter!) with many of the LDS on this forum. But to be fair, so many of them lack critical thinking skills, because that has apparently been dropped from the educational program these days, that is may not be right for us to expect that…

But in the end, that is exactly the problem for me. TRUTH and the search for TRUTH is paramount. Various CAF members may seek to have me read their posts, even the ones I have said I would put on ignore & thus I would not even see. But lacking a search for truth, there is no value in reading their posts. Once I discern a lack of interest in TRUTH and see only an interest in spouting opinion, I stop reading, I put those members on permanent ignore.

TRUTH = Jesus Christ. TRUTH (as Fr. Corapi says) “is not a some THING it is a someBODY” and that someBODY is Jesus Christ. Jesus told us what we need to know, but so many people seem to have the need to doubt the plain meaning of His words. Perhaps they need to convert what He said into something that is easier for them to understand? So now God is limited to their ability to understand? It’s hard to say… But the bottom line is that JESUS, who is GOD, gave us this information, and various people, for their own reasons, seem to feel the need to change it into something else.

I’m sticking with what JESUS SAID. HIS word is far more important to me than anything else. And He said “THIS IS MY BODY” and “THIS IS MY BLOOD” and if someone else wants to call Jesus a liar, well let that be on their head.

 

[Snow]

Good luck Stephen, No one in history is able to get a truthful answer from the LDS church because there is none. Unless you take “educated Rhetoric” as your proof of history instead of history itself?

IF you can get a straight answer from a Mormon of when and where this so called “total Apostacy” occurred, that would make world news. They dont even know? because there never was one.

Quite simply - you have no idea what you are talking about.

I’ve answered that question numerous times right here on this forum. I’ve been truthful and straight forward in my answers and your goofy claim that you can’t get a truthful answer is poppycock.

I believe that the apostasy is the loss of God’s authority to administer the affairs of the church in His name and it started during the period of NT authorship and was pretty much a done deal within several generations afterward.

As it so happens, you have absolutely no evidence, not one iota, that it didn’t happen so your silly posturing is just bluster.

 

[adrift]

Quite simply - you have no idea what you are talking about.

I

As it so happens, you have absolutely no evidence, not one iota, that it didn’t happen so your silly posturing is just bluster.

You can’t prove a negative that is why it is up to you to prove that it did.

 

[Snow]

You can’t prove a negative that is why it is up to you to prove that it did.

Hardly. The counter claim is that the RCC is God’s authorized Church. That’s a positive, not a negative and there is no proof of it whatsoever. It is simply a matter of faith. Likewise, that there was an apostasy or that some other church is God’s Church is also a matter of faith for which no absolute proof exists - which it is why it is so laughable when uninformed posters act as if their opinion on God’s behavior and opinion is absolute truth.

 

[Snow]

That’s right Gabriel. There is no drive toward TRUTH (or LOGIC for that matter!) with many of the LDS on this forum. But to be fair, so many of them lack critical thinking skills, because that has apparently been dropped from the educational program these days, that is may not be right for us to expect that…

Really???

Just exactly what inability do I exhibit in critical thinking - specifically???

Prediction: Can’t and won’t answer.

All you are doing is resorting to labeling - essentially name-calling - because you have no real argument.

 

[MelanieAnne]

You can’t prove a negative that is why it is up to you to prove that it did.

That’s right! We have had Mormon after Mormon come on to this forum telling us repeatedly about some “Great Apostasy”, which is, of course, the basis for their claim to have “restored” the “church”. And yet time after time, each and every one of them has never been able to provide a shred of evidence to establish their claim. Why? Because THERE WAS NO APOSTASY. At least not as they define it.

Some even (comically ?) suggest it is our job to establish the lack of substance to their claim. We’re supposed to prove something didn’t happen? Does that pass for logic these days? Is that the last refuge of those who have no TRUTH to rely on? What?

But we need to be understanding. Facing TRUTH or logic puts some people in a real dilemma. It would be, no doubt, very hard for anyone to come to grips with something that they have heard the opposite about (regardless of whether what they heard was not based on evidence.) It would be difficult, under such circumstances to come to grip with the facts. They would probably need time to absorb the reality that conflicts with the stories they have been told and accepted before.

It would appear that most Mormons truly believe the story that they have been told. But it is THEIR story. The fact of the matter is that, if some “GREAT APOSTASY” actually exists, it belongs to them.

The Church founded by Jesus Christ is still here, it is called the Catholic Church, and they’re not part of it. When they wake up, and come to grips with that, then they will, perhaps, be ready to embrace the TRUTH. The Mormons in my RCIA class did! And it’s a safe bet that at least some Mormons flocking to a Catholic website are actually in search of the truth. We just need to keep telling them the truth and ignore the rest!

 

[Snow]

That’s right!

You’re a hoot… and still having trouble with your logic (read “lack of”).

NO - that’s not right. The counter claim, YOUR counter claim is that the RCC is God’s authorized church. That’s a POSITIVE claim. Not a negative claim. Think about it.

We have had Mormon after Mormon come on to this forum telling us repeatedly about some “Great Apostasy”, which is, of course, the basis for their claim to have “restored” the “church”. And yet time after time, each and every one of them has never been able to provide a shred of evidence to establish their claim.

Having a little trouble with honesty on top of the logic problem?

Look at the OP. It’s not proof, but it is evidence:

ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
2. Something indicative;

Aren’t you the one that claimed that Mormons lack critical thinking skills?