The Great Apostasy

[No*s]

Which people after the book of Revelation is referred to as a prophet by the Catholic church?

Remember, the Catholic Church, when I write, is the Orthodox Church.

Here are some:

St. John the Wonderworker, St. Silouan, St. Kosmas the Aitolian, and several others.

St. Kosmas lived just a few hundred years ago. Here are a few of his prophecies (from memory, so the wording isn't exact):

"The day will come when you will see men running through the field on carriages without horses faster than rabbits."

To a child in a village in Turkish-controlled Greece: "This child will die ruler of all Greece." The child did.

"When the Turks come, hide behind the door, and it will save your life." It saved the women's lives.

St. John the Wonderworker here in our own century manifested prophetic gifts and clairvoyance. St. Seraphim of Sarov foresaw the fall of Russia to the Bolshevicks and its deliverance from them (possibly even the translation of his relics). I believe it was St. Justin Martyr who mentioned that there were prophets right up until his day (and we are well beyond). Most of the great desert saints prophesied, often on a fairly regular basis. The Optina Elders functioned as prophets.

King Edward the Confessor (I think that's who it was) foresaw the Norman invasion well before it happened and even prophesied that the land would be given over to slaughter and demons, and that the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus would turn over, prophesying the fall of Constantinople.

Just google for Orthodox saints, and you will find prophets.

 

[dan]

We don't even know that this situation was continuing even through to the end of the NT era. When did it end? Why? Let's not just give a vague, "They wanted money..." People use situations and problems to grab power. I want specifics with early sources, not LDS apologetic books.

There's nothing apologetic about any of the books I quoted. I know what apolgetic means, so don't try to teach me that it doesn't mean what I think it means. These books are in no way apologetic.

So, you deny the blaringly evident fact that the Catholic church lusts after riches because I failed to provide a specific instance?

Since when did the RCC exist without the Orthodox Church coexisting? It has not been the only Church for hundreds of years. The statement is simply not true. What is your source for this? My Church is two thousand years old and is not the church you describe.

The Orthodox church split from what is now known as the Catholic church in the Great Schism of 1054. This was when Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other. Both groups bickered about who had authority over who for centuries. The Councils of Basel and Lyons, respectively, tried to bring the groups together again, but bickering won the day, as usual. Originally three bishops had dominion over the whole church: the bishop of Rome (the Pope), Alexandria and Antioch. From the Wikipidia:

"Disunion in the Roman Empire further contributed to disunion in the Church. Theodosius the Great, who died in 395, was the last Emperor to rule over a united Roman Empire; after his death, his territory was divided into western and eastern halves, each under its own Emperor. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire had been destroyed by the barbarians, while the Eastern Roman Empire (known also as the Byzantine Empire) continued to thrive. Thus, the political unity of the Roman Empire was the first to fall."

Doctrine is what initially divided the two churches, which division testifies of the actuality of the Apostasy, given the examples I earlier pointed out.

How much money is spent on Mormon temples? I went to one when it was being built in Lubbock: there was a lot of cash that went into that. Our guide even told us that they used the highest quality materials to give glory to God. All that money could have been used to feed the poor, and so the argument falls back on your own church. Do not condemn another church for practices that are similar to your own. The same theology that justifies a grand temple justifies a grand cathedral, and the same counter-arguments apply to both.

So David and Solomon were corrupt too? I have said nothign of Cathedrals. And by the way, there's a difference between having the highest quality construction and carpet you can find and killing millions to steal their gold and lay it up in your cavernous vaults.

In addition, this is not an argument about LDS temples, this is an argument about the Apostasy. I mentioned my affiliation only as a segue to the discussion, so please follow the guidelines and stick to the subject. I have said nothing about the validity of the claim of the LDS church.

Next, how can anyone using this as a theological base for their church not address similar arguments against their own (buying and trading stocks)? How about similar issues? I do not normally attack another person's faith directly, but frankly, this argument is a double-standard. The argument is "There was a great apostasy..." and from that comes justification for your own faith. You cannot condemn another faith for something, thus disqualifying it, while doing almost identical practices in different situations.

Again, I do not define a religion by the practices of a minority within it. I define it by the quality of its leaders. I only made mention of the Pope, so please don't condemn my faith because some members own stock. If you would like to engage in a discussion of the righteousness of stock options that's a different thread. Again, there is a lage difference between buying stocks and killing millions to steal their gold and lay it up in your cavernous vaults. Where is God's glory in hoarding treasure?

You have not established that by any stretch.[/quote]

Nor have you disestablished it.

 

[dan]

Remember, the Catholic Church, when I write, is the Orthodox Church.

Here are some:

St. John the Wonderworker, St. Silouan, St. Kosmas the Aitolian, and several others.

St. Kosmas lived just a few hundred years ago. Here are a few of his prophecies (from memory, so the wording isn't exact):

"The day will come when you will see men running through the field on carriages without horses faster than rabbits."

To a child in a village in Turkish-controlled Greece: "This child will die ruler of all Greece." The child did.

"When the Turks come, hide behind the door, and it will save your life." It saved the women's lives.

St. John the Wonderworker here in our own century manifested prophetic gifts and clairvoyance. St. Seraphim of Sarov foresaw the fall of Russia to the Bolshevicks and its deliverance from them (possibly even the translation of his relics). I believe it was St. Justin Martyr who mentioned that there were prophets right up until his day (and we are well beyond). Most of the great desert saints prophesied, often on a fairly regular basis. The Optina Elders functioned as prophets.

King Edward the Confessor (I think that's who it was) foresaw the Norman invasion well before it happened and even prophesied that the land would be given over to slaughter and demons, and that the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus would turn over, prophesying the fall of Constantinople.

Just google for Orthodox saints, and you will find prophets.

You misunderstand. I didn't ask when someone has prophesied. I have in my possession the prophecy of an eighteenth century Catholic priest prophecying about the LDS church being founded, all the way from the size of his following to where they would finally settle. He's was right on the money in every detail, so does that make him a prophet? Would you like to hear it?

I aksed when someone was called a prophet (i.e. held the position of mouthpiece for God; said, Thus sayeth the Lord; led the Church by revelation; wrote scripture)

 

[Quiddity]

So, you deny the blaringly evident fact that the Catholic church lusts after riches because I failed to provide a specific instance?

Are you kidding me Dan? This is so tiresome that I won't even argue it. If your point is that the Catholic Church sins, I submit that it does, GUILTY. Name one that doesn't?
This is non-sense.

 

[No*s]

You misunderstand. I didn't ask when someone has prophesied. I have in my possession the prophecy of an eighteenth century Catholic priest prophecying about the LDS church being founded, all the way from the size of his following to where they would finally settle. He's was right on the money in every detail, so does that make him a prophet? Would you like to hear it?

I aksed when someone was called a prophet (i.e. held the position of mouthpiece for God; said, Thus sayeth the Lord; led the Church by revelation; wrote scripture)

From dictionary.com:

proph·et Audio pronunciation of "prophet" P Pronunciation Key (prft)
n.
1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.​

Every instance I gave fits the definition. "Prophet" is not a role, and the people I named did this on a regular basis. What is that if not being a prophet? Furthermore, I cited St. Justin Martyr to actually establish that there were people called prophets after the time of the Apostles.

I fail to see how it doesn't meet the criteria.

 

[dan]

And God has continually blessed Orthodoxy with prophets.

By your definition there are prophets in every single Christian church on the planet.

Dealing with traditional Christianity will be very difficult. Prophecy has never ceased. That is a claim from some of the Protestant sects. I can name prophets from memory, including some called in the twentieth century. Notice also that prophecy has never been an office in the institution. A person is a prophet, because he acts like one.

Prophecy has nothing to do with being the Lord's prophet. You misunderstand entirely. The Lord's prophet speaks in the name of the Lord (Thus sayeth the Lord), and has authority to do so. They have always received the proper authority by the laying on of hands after being called by one in authority. The testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophecy, but that doesn't make all of us official prophets.

Another fun error is that prophets frequently called people to repentance when they were apostasizing. Hence the stereotypical call of the prophet, "Repent!" You cannot repent if everything is hunkey-dorey. The "lonely periods" you mention subsequently are pretty much the norm.

I don't get exactly what point you're making here.

Your assesment contains a distinct dissimilarity to how Mormonism came about. The "apostasy" never restored lost doctrines or orders. Moses never said, "Yall listen up! This is what was really taught..." Each one assumed, not that the preceding covenant or tradition was invalid, but rather, its validity. You assume the opposite. These situations are not parallel.{/QUOTE]

This is not an argument about the validity of the Mormon church, this is an argument about the apostasy of Christ's church. Please stay on topic.

Christ didn't destroy the old system. He didn't "restore" the lost truth. Christ was the Truth (Jn. 14.6), and as such, the perfect revelation of the Father. But He worked within the system handed down and even commanded people to obey the Pharisees. He didn't just go off and establish something new because he said "they were all wrong." Again, this situation is not analogous to that of Joseph Smith and a restoration from a Great Apostasy.

Did I say He did destroy it?

 

[dan]

Are you kidding me Dan? This is so tiresome that I won't even argue it. If your point is that the Catholic Church sins, I submit that it does, GUILTY. Name one that doesn't?
This is non-sense.

Christ's church.

I'd like to point out once again that there are zero instances in the Bible of a corrupt ecclesiastical leader being allowed to maintain control of God's kingdom for any amount of time. The Bible is the rule, so allowing God's sacntioned church to sin is in direct contradiction of the pattern and rule set forth by God. He will not let His church sin.

 

[Quiddity]

Christ's church.

I'd like to point out once again that there are zero instances in the Bible of a corrupt ecclesiastical leader being allowed to maintain control of God's kingdom for any amount of time. The Bible is the rule, so the existance of God's sanctioned church sinning is in violation of God's rule.

Are you speaking of the WHOLE Church or just leaders?

 

[dan]

Are you speaking of the WHOLE Church or just leaders?

I am speaking of the administration of the leaders. I mentioned earlier that it is folly to judge an entire church based on the actions of its members. The leaders are the ones who claim divine guidance, so the manner in which they guide the church should testify of the validity of that claim. I have pointed out quite effectively that (for the most part) the Popes have shown utter and total disregard for the commandments of God and the laws of their own church.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Did I say anything about LDS beliefs (outside of a segue into the topic)?
Will you please stick to the topic and not what you believe the topic will morph into? Can you at least respect the rules since you won't respect me (which doesn't really bother me)?

The concept that Joseph Smith and company restored the true doctrine of the church is an essential part of the Mormon belief of the Great Apostacy, which you mentioned, and therefore relevant to the topic at hand.

I don't know if you can show that I have no respect for you but your rude behavior alomst caused another thread to be closed. Your disrespect for me and others, however, is quite blatant. Shall we expect the same behavior here?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/christianity/28365-christians-lds-christ-20.html
post #185

Stand up for what you said or shut your mouth.

post # 189

aren't afraid to call you on your bull****, are you? You're a real credit to apostates everywhere.

 

[No*s]

There's nothing apologetic about any of the books I quoted. I know what apolgetic means, so don't try to teach me that it doesn't mean what I think it means. These books are in no way apologetic.

Talmage, and his book, The Great Apostasy is a modern LDS book specifically written to defend the LDS doctrine that there was a "Great Apostasy." That, by definition, is an apologetic book.

Even the historical passage of Milner, whose works I know nothing of, is apologetic and anti-catholic in tone: "We shall now perceive the precious truths of the gospel begin to be less attended to. Even Justin Martyr...adulterated the Gospel. Tatian...deserved the name heretic...He [Tatian]...darkened the the whole face of Christianity." (That reminds me of another error: Tatian could not have "darkened the whole face of Christianity;" he was rejected. In order to do that, his doctrines would have to be accepted.

Apologetics, as you claim to understand, is the defense of doctrine. It is at its best when it maintains its oneness in facts. History, on the other hand, is the recounting of information, which seeks to minimize its role as propaganda. Literature that talks about "fictitious holiness" and "superstition" while advancing a specific doctrinal opinion is apologetic, and there can be no denying that...even in a history.

This is not an argument about the validity of the Mormon church, this is an argument about the apostasy of Christ's church. Please stay on topic.

It is also a debate specifically designed to further a religious dogma. I'll abide by that provided you do one request for me. If not, why should I bind myself and not address the theology behind the argument? Unspoken presuppositions and their application are as important as those spoken. For that reason asking for you to apply a theological argument to the specific cause you choose to advance is fair and just.

I'll do that if you'll back up your arguments using primary sources written a few hundred years after the events in question. This would mean you cannot quote an anti-Catholic book or an apologetic book such as The Great Apostasy. You should be able to manipulate primary sources or ones very close to it to make your case. I would be happy to debate using the literature of the first five hundred years.

That is not a difficult request. If you won't do that, I won't violate your thread. I simply won't debate you. It's not worth being told "Show me the money" when the other side cites as sources anti-Catholic material and only modern sources.

 

[Quiddity]

I am speaking of the administration of the leaders. I mentioned earlier that it is folly to judge an entire church based on the actions of its members. The leaders are the ones who claim divine guidance, so the manner in which they guide the church should testify of the validity of that claim. I have pointed out quite effectively that (for the most part) the Popes have shown utter and total disregard for the commandments of God and the laws of their own church.

Not effective at all. 2-3 pop to mind that were noted as not walking the walk. But I wouldn't deny that all Popes haven't sinned. That would be silly and I am highly surprised that you are claiming this of your organization. I had no idea your leaders were sinless. Interesting.

 

[jeffrey]

I must say this thread will be an exercise in futility... it is such a broad topic that with a few people posting everthing will start getting lost.

I think an important thing to remember though, is that the burden of proof for the "great apostasy" is on the LDS church. Not only that but some type of Mormon doctrine must be somewhere, SOMETIME stated early on, right? And yet we find no evidence of any of that. All early documents point toward Catholicism. At this point in history I and any Orthodox Christians could agree that everything was Catholic; Joseph Smith invented the LDS church in the ninteen hundreds.
As an aside, what about the fact that Jesus told us His Church would not fail and yet you are telling us it failed? I am curious about that.

This is were most people that are not Mormon will site, that we believe, that Smith was not what you think he his. Dan, your saying alot of people changed the bible, which was wrong, and Smith changed it and it was right. It's cool to believe in what you believe, but to say that... Let me put it this way. Someone many years ago changes things in the bible to what they truely believe is what God wants. Hundreds upon hundreds of years later, someone else comes along and says God did not speak to them, basicly saying that they are, the ones that originally changed it, full of B.S., and God has spoke to him and changed things the way he, God, really meant it to say. That they are the only true Church, that the tribe of Jews caught a charter over here, became the indians, or more correctly, Native Americans, and if you just follow me, (Smith) you too, can be a God one day!
I'm not knocking what you believe, but there is more proof that Smith was incorrect in his thinking then correct. Prove what you are saying without quoting the founders. Quote tangable proof.

 

[Squirt]

As an aside, what about the fact that Jesus told us His Church would not fail and yet you are telling us it failed? I am curious about that.

I don't believe He ever said that. If you will quote the chapter and verse in which He said this (I'm pretty sure I could do it for you, actually) and tell me why you are interpreting his words to mean that His Church would not fail, I'll be happy to explain the LDS interpretation of that verse.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't believe He ever said that. If you will quote the chapter and verse in which He said this (I'm pretty sure I could do it for you, actually) and tell me why you are interpreting his words to mean that His Church would not fail, I'll be happy to explain the LDS interpretation of that verse.

That the church will never fail is directly associated with who the Church says that Jesus is. Peter never said that Jesus is who Joseph Smith says Jesus is...

Matthew 16
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

 

[dan]

Not effective at all. 2-3 pop to mind that were noted as not walking the walk. But I wouldn't deny that all Popes haven't sinned. That would be silly and I am highly surprised that you are claiming this of your organization. I had no idea your leaders were sinless. Interesting.

Again, you pervert what I said. I said there should be no sin in their administration over the church. I also never said anything about the leaders of my church. I said Christ's church was perfect (from the Bible). I am making an effort to leave my church out of this despite your incessant desire to turn this into a Mormon bashing thread. Would you please stay on topic. An example of administrative sin would be the crusades. Sending men away from home for years at a time to kill people and steal their gold is an atrocity performed in the name of the Lord. Now, I never said any leaders in my church where perfect and you know that. There is a huge difference between natural human frailties and the numerous abominations performed by the popes I listed earlier. Did all of those guys walk the walk? I was unaware that concubines were a part of being pope. That is interesting.

 

[Quiddity]

Again, you pervert what I said. I said there should be no sin in their administration over the church. I also never said anything about the leaders of my church. I said Christ's church was perfect (from the Bible). I am making an effort to leave my church out of this despite your incessant desire to turn this into a Mormon bashing thread. Would you please stay on topic. An example of administrative sin would be the crusades. Sending men away from home for years at a time to kill people and steal their gold is an atrocity performed in the name of the Lord. Now, I never said any leaders in my church where perfect and you know that. There is a huge difference between natural human frailties and the numerous abominations performed by the popes I listed earlier. Did all of those guys walk the walk? I was unaware that concubines were a part of being pope. That is interesting.

And as I pointed out that this only points to sinful acts. That's all that proves. Although I could probably spend hours pointing out your misunderstandings and the same old laundry list used by others. Same old stories torn apart time and time again. That is why I would rather say "GUILTY" and then ask where it says that the leaders would be not have such shortcomings. <Yawn>

 

[dan]

Talmage, and his book, The Great Apostasy is a modern LDS book specifically written to defend the LDS doctrine that there was a "Great Apostasy." That, by definition, is an apologetic book.

Your presumptuousness is astounding. You have no clue whatsoever why James Talmage wrote the book. To enlighten your obviously perverted perspective, I will read from his preface.

"The little work as been written in the hope that it may prove of service to our missionary elders in the field, to classes and quorum organizations engaged in the study of theological subjects at home, and to earnest investigators of the teachings and claims of the restored CHurch of Jesus Christ."

It defends nothing. It is an educational tool and nothing more. It was written in answer to nothing and is aimed at no outside of those already in the church or learning more about the church. You would do well to not speak for us for you have been wrong without exception up to this point when you have so done.

Even the historical passage of Milner, whose works I know nothing of, is apologetic and anti-catholic in tone: "We shall now perceive the precious truths of the gospel begin to be less attended to. Even Justin Martyr...adulterated the Gospel. Tatian...deserved the name heretic...He [Tatian]...darkened the the whole face of Christianity." (That reminds me of another error: Tatian could not have "darkened the whole face of Christianity;" he was rejected. In order to do that, his doctrines would have to be accepted.

Apologetics, as you claim to understand, is the defense of doctrine. It is at its best when it maintains its oneness in facts. History, on the other hand, is the recounting of information, which seeks to minimize its role as propaganda. Literature that talks about "fictitious holiness" and "superstition" while advancing a specific doctrinal opinion is apologetic, and there can be no denying that...even in a history.

So explain away the history of that laundry list of popes that desecrated the name of Christianity. No one has yet to address those facts. It's not propaganda, it's fact. The only commentary I've provided are from other popes.

It is also a debate specifically designed to further a religious dogma. I'll abide by that provided you do one request for me. If not, why should I bind myself and not address the theology behind the argument? Unspoken presuppositions and their application are as important as those spoken. For that reason asking for you to apply a theological argument to the specific cause you choose to advance is fair and just.

The dogma I am trying to further is that the Apostasy is a reality. You are correct.

I'll do that if you'll back up your arguments using primary sources written a few hundred years after the events in question. This would mean you cannot quote an anti-Catholic book or an apologetic book such as The Great Apostasy. You should be able to manipulate primary sources or ones very close to it to make your case. I would be happy to debate using the literature of the first five hundred years.

That is not a difficult request. If you won't do that, I won't violate your thread. I simply won't debate you. It's not worth being told "Show me the money" when the other side cites as sources anti-Catholic material and only modern sources.

Oh, so you will trash my faith using only filthy anti-Mormon websites to gather your cache of perversions and outright lies, but when I use history from non-Catholic sources I'm stepping over the line? That's severely hypocritical. My list of papal atrocities should suffice to show that they were in no way affiliated with God or His Son Jesus Christ. They are true, they are unbiased (except the papal commentary) and they were before your great schism.

 

[dan]

And as I pointed out that this only points to sinful acts. That's all that proves.

So the very infallible leaders of your entire church can commit the most heinous acts to ever be recorded, but because the leaders of our faith are not perfect the playing field is even? You're not even listening to me. They ran your church into the ground, sdug it out of its grave, burnt it, and then ran it back into the ground. God has never let one of His ecclesiastical leaders mislead His church. That is fact. If you'd like to deny it then show me in the Bible where He has.

 

[Squirt]

That the church will never fail is directly associated with who the Church says that Jesus is. Peter never said that Jesus is who Joseph Smith says Jesus is...

You just can't resist, can you? You just have to throw in your two cents about what you perceive Joseph Smith to have believed. How about an actual quote in which Joseph contradicted Peter? Joseph Smith was in full agreement with Peter with regards to the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Don't tell me that this is not what Joseph believed or we we LDS believe today.

Matthew 16
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Matthew 16:13-20. Surprise, surprise. Now, if you wouldn't mind, tell me what "the gates of hell" were. Did this phrase mean, "The powers of Satan" will not prevail against the Church? Did it mean, "No evil" will prevail against the Church? Or was this a hyperbole meaning, "Nothing in the world" will prevail against the Church?

You tell me what you believe it meant, and why. Allow me to present the LDS point of view. I know it better than you do.