When did the Church Commit Apostasy?

[Fixation On God]

I think the better question to ask would be, when "hasn't" the church committed apostasy?

And which church is that?

When examining any apostasy regarding the "modern" church we too must look back to these examples for what they are that described the actions of the children of Israel and how those actions related to the church today.

The church today has accepted all sorts of beliefs not taught in the wrod of God in favor of the many teachings of various "non-Christian" religions. Immortality of the soul, the state of the dead, the non-Biblical Sunday sacredness as opposed to God Holy and Sanctified seventh-day sabbath are just a few things which can be counted as apostasy in the "church" today.

If if want to see what's to come we should be prepared to look backward first.

heresies like Arianism, Machineanism, Monophysitism, and Gnosticism have been expunged from the Catholic Church.

Nice Try.

The Church of course never "failed". Jesus promises He will be with the Church until the end of the Age.

So the Gospel that has been taught continuously by the Church from the Apostolic Age until now, must, as I see it, be the true unfailing Gospel, taught by the true unfailing Church. Doctrines that have not been continuously and openly taught from the Apostolic Age to the present, must by that token, to my mind, be considered suspect.

Any idea that true doctrine failed, or that certain key teachings were somehow lost for long periods, and later rediscovered, does not seem to sit well with the promises of scripture.

So...despite any historical evidence that shows the Church had failed, and despite Christ's words that the Church would stand firm against Satan's minions forever, you believe it did, in fact, fail?

 

[wlajoie74]

First Council of Nicea (325)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.

begotten means to be procreated.

procreate means
v.tr.
1.To beget and conceive (offspring).
2.To produce or create; originate.
v.intr.
To beget and conceive offspring; reproduce.

In other words he is half YHWH and half Mary. He is the son of these two beings. One being God. One being a human woman. God took his seed and put it in the womans egg and they had Jesus. This does not make him God. No different than my son is not me though he is of the same essense of me because he's from my seed. Jesus was not created by God he was procreated by God and Mary. A part of him always existed being that he is part God.

By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth].

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man.

Yes, when God the father put his seed in Mary they begot Jesus.

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven.

Thank God for that.

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

Hopefully soon.

And in the Holy Ghost.

Which is the force of God which makes all things happen.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

I would have to agree with this as well to an extent. A part of him always existed in God. He was not created he was begotten or procreated. However, he was procreated from more than one substance. He was begotten by God and Mary.

I would have to say that the CC went wrong when they started worshipping Jesus as God and Mary as the mother of God. It is very clear that YHWH only wants us to worship him the one and only true God. Christ is not that being. He is begotten from him. He is the son of God and Mary. This is where the apostacy comes in. Yaweh is the only true god. Yeshua is of him, but not him.

double post

 

[Fixation On God]

Btw Somone is going to come and argue about Peter and the different Sees.

So before that person come and does that, I want to let them know that Peter Is the SEE.

 

[RND]

And which church is that?

The one mentioned in Revelation 17.

heresies like Arianism, Machineanism, Monophysitism, and Gnosticism have been expunged from the Catholic Church.

Nice Try.

And yet, she continues with Mithraism and has for centuries. Mithraism can trace it's origins back to ancient Babylon and the sun cults there.

Mithraic Mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html

The Church of course never "failed". Jesus promises He will be with the Church until the end of the Age.

In spirit and in truth.

So the Gospel that has been taught continuously by the Church from the Apostolic Age until now, must, as I see it, be the true unfailing Gospel, taught by the true unfailing Church. Doctrines that have not been continuously and openly taught from the Apostolic Age to the present, must by that token, to my mind, be considered suspect.

As you say it.

Any idea that true doctrine failed, or that certain key teachings were somehow lost for long periods, and later rediscovered, does not seem to sit well with the promises of scripture.

Of course not. God has always had a faithful people ready to stand on truth rather than sway to the ways of man and tradition.

So...despite any historical evidence that shows the Church had failed, and despite Christ's words that the Church would stand firm against Satan's minions forever, you believe it did, in fact, fail?

No, God's word says He won't fail and thus He has always had a faithful remnant to proclaim the Good News of God and give glory to him and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Rev 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

 

[Fixation On God]

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christs] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

double post

LOL!

I would have to say that the CC went wrong when they started worshipping Jesus as God and Mary as the mother of God. It is very clear that YHWH only wants us to worship him the one and only true God. Christ is not that being. He is begotten from him. He is the son of God and Mary. This is where the apostacy comes in. Yaweh is the only true god. Yeshua is of him, but not him.

So you're saying that we are Mary Worshipers? We bless Mary, we don't worship her.
Secondly, we pray to Mary, who in turn, prays for us. Because it is scripturally significant to have the Saints pray for us.

Because nothing is impossible for God; if He chose to protect Mary from the stain of original sin so as to better prepare her for her life's greatest task, then nothing could possibly stop him from doing exactly that.

 

[Fixation On God]

listen guys i'm tired, So far all the Catholics have left GT so it's like I have to battle all of you off by myself

 

[Fixation On God]

I'm gunna go get a hair-cut, I'll come back to defend myself later.

 

[RND]

Btw Somone is going to come and argue about Peter and the different Sees.

So before that person come and does that, I want to let them know that Peter Is the SEE.

Nope. The "little rock."

Now, do you have any knowledge that it is Simon Magus actually in Rome and not Peter?

Simon Peter versus Simon the Sorcerer

 

[wlajoie74]

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christs] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).


LOL!

So you're saying that we are Mary Worshipers? We bless Mary, we don't worship her.
Secondly, we pray to Mary, who in turn, prays for us. Because it is scripturally significant to have the Saints pray for us.

Because nothing is impossible for God; if He chose to protect Mary from the stain of original sin so as to better prepare her for her life's greatest task, then nothing could possibly stop him from doing exactly that.

You put her up as an idol and pray to her. God said not to worship idols. I like how you convienently forgot to respond to the part about worshipping Jesus. and as far as the infant baptism thing goes.WHAT?

 

[RND]

So you're saying that we are Mary Worshipers? We bless Mary, we don't worship her.
Secondly, we pray to Mary, who in turn, prays for us. Because it is scripturally significant to have the Saints pray for us.

Mary, God bless her, is resting in the tomb and awaiting her change which comes when Jesus returns to resurrect her.

Mary is not the "Queen of Heaven." That term alone has some very interesting roots that have nothing to do with Mary. Isis maybe.

Isis - Egyptian Goddess Isis - Egyptian Mythology - Aset - Nubian Goddess Isis

"Among these names of Roman Isis, Queen of Heaven is outstanding for its long and continuous history. Herodotus identified Isis with the Greek and Roman goddesses of agriculture, Demeter and Ceres. In Yorùbá mythology, Isis became Yemaya. In later years, Isis also had temples throughout Europe, Africa, and Asia, and as far away as the British Isles, where there was a temple to Isis on the River Thames by Southwark.

Some scholars argue that aspects of Isis worship have influenced the practices of some Christians in regards to the Virgin Mary, and especially her relationship with her son, Horus. There is a strong resemblance to the depiction of the seated Isis holding or suckling the child Horus and the seated Mary and the baby Jesus. It has been suggested by these scholars that the reason Isis worship abruptly ends, despite the vast number of its adherents, is due to her having been identified as Mary, and her temples having been merely renamed in consequence. If this is true then Isis is still worshipped today, and has been for at least 5000 years, and if it is not, then there has still been a recent revival of explicitly Isis based worship, among neopagans and feminists who are attracted by the matriarchal notions of goddess worship."

 

[visionary]

I was joking about the scriptural proof part.

Anyway, the Church can't have failed after the close of the apostolic age. No matter what 'ravening wolves' and false teachings may have come out, Christ promised the Church would never, EVER fail. He also promised that Peter's faith would not fail, nor would that of his successors.

So, with all the heresies that have come out of various bishropics within the Church, the Church has never fallen from Christ's teachings as a whole. That is why heresies like Arianism, Machineanism, Monophysitism, and Gnosticism have been expunged from the Catholic Church.

All you need is two or three gathered together in His name to be a "Church" which Christ can point to ... to show His church has not failed.

 

[RND]

All you need is two or three gathered together in His name to be a "Church" which Christ can point to ... to show His church has not failed.

Outstanding point Vis. Muy excellente. Props for you!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You seem to me to be avoiding the point here. If in your view the true church between 100 AD and 1400 AD was not the Catholic Church, then where was it?

No, you are avoiding the point. Since the RCC and LDS claim that the Church is essentially itself, that Jesus founded itself, and that it itself alone is infallible and incapable of apostasy, then the "burden of proof" lies entirely, soly and exclusively with those denominations. As you agreed. Now, quote where Jesus said that the RCC (or LDS) is founded by him, and that such is (exclusively) infallible in perpetuity.


To your question, Protestants do not tend to agree with your assumption that the one holy catholic church/ the communion of saints/ the mystical union of all believers is an institutional denomination (much less, that it is the CC one). I don't know where the RCC was during 100-1400 AD, if it was at all, and frankly, I don't think it matters in any theological sense. The church is where Christ and His people are, and Christ and His people have been around since that first Christmas.

Protestants are no better at it then Catholics...

True. But then no Protestants claim to be infallible/unaccountable, whoever hears us hears Jesus, that all must accept whatever each says with docility, that it is absolutely essential for salvation that every human creature be subject to the various leaders of our denominations, so the claims are not identical. To admit, as you did, that Catholics are no better than Protestants is hardly a convincing apologetic for the remarkable claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone. Or LDS.

Why don't you try trusting Christ's words, when He stated clearly and unequivocally that the forces of Hell would never overcome His Church?

I believe His promise. But then He didn't say "Catholic Church," He said church. And gates are defensive, not offensive - and so far, hell has not stopped the church. Christ's promise is that it never will. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the LDS or RCC or WELS or UMC or any other denomination; Jesus never promised anything to any denomination - including yours.

You constantly ask that 'which church' question, knowing full well what the answer is. To claim that Christ's true Church stayed hidden for centuries, then suddenly jumped out during the Reformation (or even later, for most Evangelical denominations), is both unrealistic and against Scripture.

And if you read what I posted, you'd realize that you I never said any such thing. You seem to be confusing Protestantism with Restitutionalism. I don't believe that Jesus founded ANY infallible denomination - and certainly not the RCC or LDS. Jesus founded the church. It's not my denomination or yours or the LDS or any other. What is UNFOUNDED by Scripture is that Jesus founded a denomination, that it was the Catholic Church and that it is infallible in perpetuity. And you know that, because if you had a single verse that taught that, you would have quoted it. You didn't because you KNOW the claim is nowhere stated in Scripture. That doesn't keep the RCC or LDS from claiming such, I realize that (anyone can claim anything - ego permitting) but the reality is such is nowhere stated in Scripture, Jesus never said or promised any such thing toward EITHER of those denominations (or any other). And I think you know that.

The Catholic Church stayed true to the teachings of Christ, because He would not allow it to stray. He promised He would not.

IF you had a verse where Jesus promises this to the Catholic Church, you would have quoted it. It doesn't exist. You know it. I know it. We all know it. It's just a self-serving, accountability-evading claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone. ANYONE can claim anything (ego permitting) and two do claim this one - the RCC and LDS (at least, those are the two known to me).






.

 

[E.C.]

Clearly, there are quite a few people here who disagree that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. That's fine; if we all agreed, this board would serve no purpose other than to have 'me too' posts all day long, and that would be boring.

Now, clearly Christ founded ONE Church, one holy, catholic (meaning universal) and apostolic church. There were, over time, several bishoprics established, but they were all part of the same Church. On this, I believe, we can agree. If not, then frankly, you shouldn't be in this part of the boards, because that's in the Nicene Creed.

So...Christ founded one single Church. I'd like to have someone explain to me exactly how and when that Church went into apostasy. I've had Acts 20:29-30 quoted at me several times (three times in one post alone), which states that "of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" as an explanation why the Catholic Church teachings aren't accepted by certain people (you know who you are). So when did the Church fail to heed in Christ's commands? When did it commit Apostasy?

And prove it scripturally.

I think we need to think about what we are asking here.
Afterall, even at the height of Arianism when 95% of self-professing Christians were infact Arians, the Church did not apostasize.

To say that the entire Church, that is 100% of it, apostasized in its entirity is to say that Christ lied when He said that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Then to say that God had to re-reveal Himself to mankind at some later point is to say that the Gospels and Christ's time on this earth as described in the Gospels are nothing more than wastes of time and frauderies.



Given that the hatred for the Roman Church added to ignorance of Christianity in the East (that is Eastern Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Far East, etc) lead to many Protestants or Protestants-in-denial declaring that the entire Church at 100% in her entirity somehow apostasized and fell and became heretical and so forth; what we need to ask here is this:

Are we meaning that at some point in time 100% of the Church apostacized?
Are we speaking only of the West, the East, neither or both?
What do we mean by apostacize?

Thus concluding the private, meaningless ramblings of an acolyte

 

[visionary]

You may argue all this til the cows come home.. but the truth of the matter is the scripture says in the end days... there will only be a remnant of her seed.

 

[Fixation On God]

You put her up as an idol and pray to her. God said not to worship idols. I like how you convienently forgot to respond to the part about worshipping Jesus. and as far as the infant baptism thing goes.WHAT?

Stop flaming! You don't know what your saying.
God's eternal Son, who is, and continues (Romans 1:4; Romans 9:5) true and eternal God, (1 John 5:20; John 1:1; John 17:3; Romans 1:3; Colossians 1:15) took upon him the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, (Galatians 4:4; Luke 1:31,42,43) by the operation of the Holy Ghost; (John 1:14; Matthew 1:18,20; Luke 1:32,35) that he might also be the true seed of David, (Psalms 132:11; Romans 1:3; 7:12; Acts 2:30)like unto his brethren in all things, (Philippians 2:7; Hebrews 2:14,17) sin excepted. (Hebrews 4:15)

baptism is instituted (Colossians 2:11-13) in the new covenant.

"Catholic Church," He said church. And gates are defensive, not offensive - and so far, hell has not stopped the church. Christ's promise is that it never will. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the LDS or RCC or WELS or UMC or any other denomination; Jesus never promised anything to any denomination - including yours



IF you had a verse where Jesus promises this to the Catholic Church, you would have quoted it. It doesn't exist. You know it. I know it. We all know it. It's just a self-serving, accountability-evading claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone. ANYONE can claim anything (ego permitting) and two do claim this one - the RCC and LDS (at least, those are the two known to me).
.

That the Son of God, from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves (Matthew 16:18; John 10:28-30; Psalms 129:1-5) to himself by his Spirit and word, (Isaiah 59:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 10:14-17; Ephesians 5:26) out of the whole human race, (Genesis 26:4; Revelation 5:9) a church chosen to everlasting life, (Romans 8:29,30; Ephesians 1:10-13) agreeing in true faith; (Acts 2:46; Ephesians 4:3-6) and that I am and forever shall remain, (Psalms 23:6; 1 Corinthians 1:8,9; John 10:28; 1 John 2:19; 1 Peter 1:5) a living member. (1 John 3:14,19-21; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:10)

The Church is described as the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and of which all baptized persons are members. It is called the People of God, the New Israel, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and the pillar and ground of truth. The Church is described as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Church is one, because it is one Body, under one Head, our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is catholic, because it proclaims the whole Faith to all people, to the end of time.

If you remember reading: "Catholic means (Universal)"

The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ's mission to all people.

Tell you what...if you can show me, Scripturally, where the Bible is to be taken as the sole authority, I'll leave the Catholic Church.

Show me clear, unambiguous Scripture that states that Scripture contains ALL of God's teachings, and you've got yourself a convert.
Prove to me, without any possible misinterpretation, that the Bible claims to be the sole authority necessary for the Church, and I'll drop that Catholicism for good.

Otherwise, quit asking us to prove stuff solely from Scripture.

 

[Fixation On God]

Luke writes that Mary is full of grace, highly favoured. Lk 1:37: "For with God nothing shall be impossible." She is the "woman" of Gen 3:15 whose enmity with Satan and sin is absolute. She is the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:11-21) made to hold the living Word of God: a holy tabernacle made not of the purest gold, but of the purest flesh. St. Paul is emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to Jews and Gentiles alike. Babies have not sinned; Adam and Eve before the fall had not sinned; Jesus never sinned. These are some exceptions that fall outside St. Paul's condemnation. Mary is another.

Yes, I know that in Luke 1:47 Mary states, 'my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." Mary was saved by the merits of Christ, just as we are. The difference between Mary and other Christians is that her salvation from sin was more perfect. While we are freed from original sin at our baptism, Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception. But Jesus is the Savior in both cases.

Again, go back to the original languaging of the New Testament, the Greek. The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

the church (not the true Church, as in the world-wide organizations of confessing Christians) has ALWAYS, since the beginning, been committing continual apostasy. we'll always have tares among the wheat until Judgment comes. what is recognized as the church will never function perfectly until Christ returns. (not to say that certain individual churches don't function properly)

it's been in every denomination since history, some more than others, and in different ways.

Semper Reformanda =P

 

[Fixation On God]

You know, I'm constantly amazed at all these people who mysteriously get into my head and decide what I'm thinking. Why don't I ever notice them in there?

I asked the OP question for a specific reason: I was being told in other threads that the Catholic Church, despite having been founded on Pentecost in 33 AD, wasn't the 'real' Church, because it followed 'traditions of men.' My point was that Christ Himself promised, clearly and distinctly, that His Church would NOT fail.

When you assume, you make...well, I'm sure you can figure out the rest.


P.S: Members of the Catholic Church have made mistakes before, even Popes. But never has the Church turned away from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. There WERE some errors, injustices, and human rights offenses in the Church's history. There were similar errors in every other denomination as well. Pope John Paul II was merely expressing his sorrow at the deeds done by members of the Church that did go against Christ's teachings. That doesn't mean the Church failed.

 

[OpenDoor]

Now, do you have any knowledge that it is Simon Magus actually in Rome and not Peter?

Simon Peter versus Simon the Sorcerer

oh boy