What Was the Apostasy?

[mfbukowski]

The problem with this whole discussion is that the Mormons started this discussion by Saying the Catholic Church apostasized but have yet to say how or when.

I’ve been having a discussion with MFBukowski for a while now on this thread. He identified a series of doctrinal statements that he felt were the apostasy. We are now going through the scriptural basis of each one to show him that these were not points of th apostasy.

Snow on the other hand, says " 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."

I don’t even understand what he means by this, but it is clearly different than MFBukowski’s view of the apostasy. So there is no consistent view from the Mormons on what the Great apostasy was. Doesn’t that seem very wierd…

Not at all. I agree with Snow that the apostasy was both a loss of authority and of course, following that a loss of doctrines.

My recollection is that you asked me for a list of doctrines
of the catholic church which showed a loss of doctrinal purity.

The apostasy was both a loss of authority and correct doctrine, and I know for a fact that Snow believes the same that I do on this. Ask him.

This is going no where.

 

[Snow]

This is dishonest. I posted from Catholic and non Catholic sources. So What? Don’t you think it is a little childish to post that last sentence? It sounds a little desperate.

This is also dishonest. You gave a good understanding from the LDS view. I didn’t complain that it doesn’t match up with Catholic opinion. I pointed out that it doesn’t match up with the Webster Dictionary definition of Apostasy. Poster are asking when it happened. The it is apostasy. What you are saying is the LDS had a different meaning of the word than is commonly accepted.

Then I apologize for being flippant.

Please read the OP. This thread is about the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy. Websters does not have a definition of the Great Apostasy.

Now - if you think I have been dishonest, please demonstrate what was dishonest, precisely. If you are correct I’ll apologize and fix it.

So the apostasy definition is basically defined to fit a preconceived Idea or as you wrote doctrine.

I don’t know what that mean or what you are trying to say but I believe there was an apostasy - the Great Apostasy. I explained what that belief was. Of course I defined it to match what I believe happened. How else could I explain what I believe?

Perhaps this is why you can’t definitively state when it happened because then it would become obvious that your definition is off kilter.

Huh? How many times do I need to explain when I believe it happened? … And regardless of when it happened, how does that impact the definition?

 

[mfbukowski]

I read Snow’s first reading when it originally came out and I had the same comments for him. Read the second or third post. You said there was an Apostacy, but never, ever have you said what it was… What doctrines were changed? I’ve been trying to get that for days now.

This was your original question, which I then responded with post 98.

I think you need to admit that you distorted my position.

The apostasy was both loss of authority AND doctrine. I spoke about doctrine only to answer your question

 

[mfbukowski]

The apostasy was both a loss of authority and correct doctrine, and I know for a fact that Snow believes the same that I do on this. Ask him.

This is going no where.

This cracks me up because I posted it before I saw snow basically saying the same thing I did, asking you to ask me about it. So consider this the second testimony of the same position

 

[paul_c]

Look, I am really interested in understanding what you think was the apostasy that renders Catholicism invalid. That is the reason I am engaging in this discussion. So far I don’t even understand what it is, so I am not in a position to judge whether your view is valid. You at least gave me some areas where you thought the church apostasized. I did some research and showed where all of your points could be demonstrated as apostolic through scripture. For 2000 years, the church has gone through great lengths to make sure it doesn’t deviate from the apostolic teachings so everything is well documented. I have the same discussions with Protestants, who as you note, also must believe the Catholic Church apostasized to justify their break. The reasons to have these discussions is to learn the truth. The fastest way to find the potential holes in a particular theology is to test them with non-believers. I can honestly say that in months of doing this on various forums, I have yet to see someone poke a hole in Catholic theology.

I don’t care what role you have in the Mormon church. The truth is still the truth and its every person’s responsibility to find it. If you find that the Mormon truth is not really truth, you owe it to your own soul and especially to the souls of those you teach to change your path.

 

[paul_c]

This cracks me up because I posted it before I saw snow basically saying the same thing I did, asking you to ask me about it. So consider this the second testimony of the same position

Okay, but your position is still unintelligible. To apostasize, we need to be teaching some doctrines that are different than what the apostles taught. You still haven’t given us one to work with that we can’t rebut with scriptural references. for something as big as this, it should be some huge heresy, wouldn’t you think.

 

[Snow]

Your argument is very weak here. You argue that the Church apostasized. But to do that, it would have to replace correct doctrine with incorrect doctrine.

No - as I explained from the get go, the issue is, in my opinion, one of authority. Doctrine is important but is not the crux of the matter. I believe that the RCC has some correct doctrine but more to the point, I do not believe it is authorized to act in God’s name.

Can you show even one case of doctrinal change within the church.

Seriously?

The Trinity
Creation ex nihilo
Adoration of angels and Saints
Assumption of Mary
Purgatory
Limbo
Confessions of sins to priests
Indulgences
Canonization of Saints
Baptism of infants
Immaculate conception
Papal infallibility
etc

Now I know that not all those may be technically “doctrine” depending on how one chooses to define doctrine but they are or were normative belief/teaching in the RCC

I asked Bukowski the same question, he gave me a list and I showed him where everyone of the doctrines he identified were consistent with scripture. The fact is, you have no list, other than the one you gave and I answered, but you were too lazy to read the evidence.

And you’re fat and have bad breath. Get real. Not caring what the Catholic apologetic response is hardly equates with laziness.

So, if what you claim is true, that I have no list, what did I just post above? French fries? Smelling Salts? Or was it a list?

Furthermore, you claim that lack of new revelation points to the apostasy. Well, apostasy is changing from one doctrine to another. In the Catholic church, we believe that all doctrines were revealed to the apostles and that they have passed them down faithfully.

PLEASE cite the faithful apotolic scripture that demonstrates homoousious or the assumption of Mary or indulgences.

Its too bad that you couldn’t back up a few post to see what I was referring to. But of course the Catholic teachings are consistent with scripture.

PLEASE cite the faithful apotolic scripture that demonstrates adoration of Saints and immaculate conception.

In the Catholic Church, we interpret scripture throught the prism of the apostolic tradition. We have the advantage of having had the people who wrote the scriptures describe how to interpret what they wrote and furthermore, to fill in the gaps between their writings. This was taught through word of mouth and passed on from generation to generation.

I don’t have any problem with tradition - not that I believe it but it seems a valid enough concept to develop new doctrine. The problem is that people claim that there are no changes in the RCC,

By what authority to you interpret scriptures differently?

Prophecy and the Holy Ghost.

Its really disappointing that you can spend the time to write but not the time to read the answers. But for starters, ready John 1: 1-4:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race.

Yeah - I’ve read the verses. Not particularly relevant to this discussion.

And where do you get this information?

Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch. 6-13

Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I ch.8

Theoderet, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13

Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21

Athanasius, De decretis synodis

Athanasius, Ep. ad episcopos Africae, 5.ff

Kenneth Scott Latourette ((Sterling Professor of Missions and Oriental History and Fellow of Berkeley College in Yale University) A History of Christianity pp 153-4

Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, pp. 99-100 (Herrin is a member if editorial board of Past and Present, and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, graduated in history at Cambridge, PhD at Birmingham University and studied in Paris, Munich, Istanbul and most recently a Fellow at the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, Princeton University.)

Richard Kieckhefer (1989) “Papacy” Dictionary of the Middle Ages

David Edwards, (Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, Dean of Kings College, Cambridge, Sub-Dean of Westminster and Dean of Norwich) Christianity, The First 2000 Years p. 96

Wand, J.W.C., A History of the Early Church (Methuen, 1963), p.*156.

Brian Moynahan, The Faith - A History of Christianity, p.121

etc.

Yes he called the council but he didn’t have a vote and the final doctrine of the trinity was consistent with scriptures (and different from Arius). Try reading what I attached in my previous post.

Okay - I will - as soon as you prove your claim that Catholic doctrine - in this case “homoousious” is found in the Bible.

Tell me what Church doctrinal teachings are non-apostolic. That’s exactly where this discussion started. I asked MF Bukowski to give me his list, which he did, and I showed him where everyone of them was either apostolic or not really a Catholic doctrine at all. You claimed the doctrine of the trinity was non-apostolic. I gave you the proof that it was, but you were too lazy (or maybe to be fair, busy) to read it. And yes, we believe that all doctrine was revealed to the Apostles. God doesn’t change so neither should doctrine. What you have in the Mormon church is doctrine that changes when you realize that your previous doctrine was wrong. That doesn’t happen to us, since God gave us the doctrine and he is never wrong.

Still selling indulgences?

 

[Snow]

This cracks me up because I posted it before I saw snow basically saying the same thing I did, asking you to ask me about it. So consider this the second testimony of the same position

It’s laughable. People make false accusations without a second thought - as if no one can read what they write.

 

[Snow]

Okay, but your position is still unintelligible. To apostasize, we need to be teaching some doctrines that are different than what the apostles taught.

That’s hardly true. One could apostatize through sin or if you believe that authority must be passed on by other’s in authority to confer it - an organization could fall into apostasy if all those in authority all died with out passing it on.

You still haven’t given us one to work with that we can’t rebut with scriptural references. for something as big as this, it should be some huge heresy, wouldn’t you think.

I’m still waiting for that scriptural reference on homoousious.

Do you think I’ll have to wait long?

 

[mfbukowski]

Look, I am really interested in understanding what you think was the apostasy that renders Catholicism invalid. That is the reason I am engaging in this discussion. So far I don’t even understand what it is, so I am not in a position to judge whether your view is valid. You at least gave me some areas where you thought the church apostasized. I did some research and showed where all of your points could be demonstrated as apostolic through scripture. For 2000 years, the church has gone through great lengths to make sure it doesn’t deviate from the apostolic teachings so everything is well documented. I have the same discussions with Protestants, who as you note, also must believe the Catholic Church apostasized to justify their break. The reasons to have these discussions is to learn the truth. The fastest way to find the potential holes in a particular theology is to test them with non-believers. I can honestly say that in months of doing this on various forums, I have yet to see someone poke a hole in Catholic theology.

I don’t care what role you have in the Mormon church. The truth is still the truth and its every person’s responsibility to find it. If you find that the Mormon truth is not really truth, you owe it to your own soul and especially to the souls of those you teach to change your path.

You posted some things from your catholic website which misrepresented the Mormon position. That’s why I got into this after you asked for the doctrines. My purpose was to show that the catholic website was innacurate. We got sidetracked on the discussion of the eucharist, and your misunderstanding of where I was headed with this

The apostasy cannot be proven. If you are a lifelong catholic, you will never understand it. There are alternative explanations for all we bring up, if you really WANT to see it that way, so don’t worry about us destroying your faith.

We are used to people not believing in Mormonism, so your arguments just don’t work against us.

On the other hand, to us it is so obvious that there was an apostasy, and it is frustrating because we bring up fact after fact, which you won’t understand or accept.

When I was a catholic teenager, I had doubts. I always had doubts from the time I hit the age of reason. You never had doubts, I guess. On the other hand, with the experiences I have had since I became LDS, I have never had any doubts. When God shows you something, you don’t doubt it.

My personal belief is that God takes us where we are and leads us to where he wants us to be. I have no problem with the possibility that catholicism is right for you now. It is my belief that at some point in the future, perhaps after you pass on, you will understand the truth. I don’t mean to be condescending or to somehow “put down” your faith, which I know you hold dear.

And I know that you will heartily disagree.

I just wanted to be honest and tell you where I am coming from.

Asking what about the apostasy renders catholicism invalid is like asking what is invalid about Hinduism. You don’t even consider that it could be valid, do you? But what about Taoism-- have you looked into that? Why not? what if it is the truth?

There is no question to me that Catholicsm is not valid just the way that there is no question tome that Hinduism is not valid.

Can you prove that Hinduism is not valid? At what point, what date, did it become invalid? What facts make it invalid? How do you know it is invalid?

 

[mfbukowski]

Note that I say “we” in the preceeding post. I don’t mean those comments to apply to anyone but myself

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is no question to me that Catholicsm is not valid just the way that there is no question tome that Hinduism is not valid.

Can you prove that Hinduism is not valid? At what point, what date, did it become invalid? What facts make it invalid? How do you know it is invalid?

Hinduism is polytheistic, denying the Truth of One God. And also denies Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

You believe these same things about Catholicism then?

Mormonism would be closer to Hinduism is then Catholicism. Polytheism…denying One God.

And no, your belief that God the Father is the God that we worship while other gods exist…maybe you believe Hindu gods are real gods, just you shouldn’t worship them? If not, why not, your theology would certainly allow for it.

 

[mfbukowski]

Huh? How many times do I need to explain when I believe it happened? … And regardless of when it happened, how does that impact the definition?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Young also taught:

Adam is God
Interracial marriage is a sin
Joseph Smith grants entrance into the celestial kingdom
God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary

So, you believe all these things as well?

Just asking, because I have yet to figure out why mormons believe some things Young said, but not others…other than…whatever “feels” right…which is different for every person.

Today, your church denies all these things and calls them Young’s opinion.

I looked at LDS.org, there is nothing there about your church teaching that your sacrament is anything but remembering Christ’s Sacrifice, Resurrection and your baptismal covenants.

Maybe you are more like Tsuzuki than I thought, a Mormon/Catholic hybrid, same as him. Who chooses to believe as much or as little as what fits into your own concept of “Mormon orthodoxy” (as if anything of the sort exists).

 

[adrift]

Then I apologize for being flippant.

Please read the OP. This thread is about the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy. Websters does not have a definition of the Great Apostasy.

Now - if you think I have been dishonest, please demonstrate what was dishonest, precisely. If you are correct I’ll apologize and fix it

I already did please reread my post.

I don’t know what that mean or what you are trying to say but I believe there was an apostasy - the Great Apostasy. I explained what that belief was. Of course I defined it to match what I believe happened. How else could I explain what I believe?

I don’t know how to write it so it is clearer. The definition you are using is unique to LDS.

apostasy is a renunciation of a religious faith or Abandonment of one’s religious faith

Huh? How many times do I need to explain when I believe it happened? … And regardless of when it happened, how does that impact the definition?

Well it depends on which definition you use. Definition matters because you have to be on the same page. I don’t accept your definition. It is not the common definition. If you use the definition from the dictionary it would be hard to say that there has been an apostasy.

 

[adrift]

Definition: 1- Turning or falling away from true gospel teachings as individuals or as a people. 2- The time after Christ’s death when the people turned wicked and killed the apostles and disciples, causing the Lord to take the Church, priesthood, and revelation away from the earth.

Would you agree with this definition? I want to make it clear that I do not but is this your definition?

 

[adrift]

I’m still waiting for that scriptural reference on homoousious.

Do you think I’ll have to wait long?

I did answer in another thread which is now closed. I will just link to that answer I guess if you call me lazy you would be right

 

[paul_c]

No - as I explained from the get go, the issue is, in my opinion, one of authority. Doctrine is important but is not the crux of the matter. I believe that the RCC has some correct doctrine but more to the point, I do not believe it is authorized to act in God’s name.

Why not? Jesus gave the authority to Peter and he handed it down to his successors. I’m sure you know the Bible well enough to know those quotes.

Seriously?

The Trinity
Creation ex nihilo
Adoration of angels and Saints
Assumption of Mary
Purgatory
Limbo
Confessions of sins to priests
Indulgences
Canonization of Saints
Baptism of infants
Immaculate conception
Papal infallibility
etc

Now I know that not all those may be technically “doctrine” depending on how one chooses to define doctrine but they are or were normative belief/teaching in the RCC

MF Bukowski gave me an almost identical list. I gave him the answers in post 145 (just scroll up).

And you’re fat and have bad breath. Get real. Not caring what the Catholic apologetic response is hardly equates with laziness.

Look, I didn’t mean to insult you. I’m just pointing out that when you ask for an answer and I give it to you, it would seem to be courteous to at least peruse what I sent. If you are not interested in the answers, why ask the questions? And why is the Catholic apologetic response inappropriate? You want the Catholic position, I provided it.

So, if what you claim is true, that I have no list, what did I just post above? French fries? Smelling Salts? Or was it a list?

Okay, now you’ve provided a list. That is good, it provides a basis for discussion. However, I’ve already addressed almost every item on that list in post 145.

PLEASE cite the faithful apotolic scripture that demonstrates homoousious or the assumption of Mary or indulgences.

Done in my previous posts (145 and 189)

PLEASE cite the faithful apotolic scripture that demonstrates adoration of Saints and immaculate conception.

see post 145

I don’t have any problem with tradition - not that I believe it but it seems a valid enough concept to develop new doctrine. The problem is that people claim that there are no changes in the RCC,

There are changes in Church practice to keep up with the times, but not in church doctrine

Prophecy and the Holy Ghost.

This is completely dependent on the credibility of Joseph Smith.

Yeah - I’ve read the verses. Not particularly relevant to this discussion.

. How so. They show that God and Jesus are of the same substance and that both are eternal.

 

[mfbukowski]

Young also taught:

Adam is God
Interracial marriage is a sin
Joseph Smith grants entrance into the celestial kingdom
God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary

So, you believe all these things as well?

Just asking, because I have yet to figure out why mormons believe some things Young said, but not others…other than…whatever “feels” right…which is different for every person.

Today, your church denies all these things and calls them Young’s opinion.

I looked at LDS.org, there is nothing there about your church teaching that your sacrament is anything but remembering Christ’s Sacrifice, Resurrection and your baptismal covenants.

Maybe you are more like Tsuzuki than I thought, a Mormon/Catholic hybrid, same as him. Who chooses to believe as much or as little as what fits into your own concept of “Mormon orthodoxy” (as if anything of the sort exists).

Our doctrines are found only in the standard works. I have said this many many times and you know it.

 

[mfbukowski]

MF Bukowski gave me an almost identical list. I gave him the answers in post 145 (just scroll up).

No, you gave me links to a catholic website which gave “answers” which were strawman representations of what we believed. Your “answers” were not answers at all.

And as you recall, we never got past the eucharist.

I will be glad to pass the torch to Snow if he feels like taking on those stupid answers on the catholic website.

Should take him about 5 minutes per answer. But he is a busy guy too!