Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,817 Excellent

About 3DOP

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    St. Marys, KS
  • Interests
    Peace, Baseball, Beer, Joy, War, Boxing, Tolstoy, Wine, Church, Tennis, Family, Monastics, Economics, Politics, Scotland, Oceans, Prayer, Heaven, Flowers, Space, Bobby Darin, Time, Dracula, Rivers, Fire, Angels, Aquinas, Real Estate, Maureen O'Hara, Fish, Wind, Honey, Motion, The First Lady of Song, Lava, Stomach Acid, Merging, Jumping, Water Softeners, Barbecue, Bone, Bananas, Skin, American Football, Olivia de Havilland, and Michaelangelo.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,184 profile views
  1. Mark, hi. You wrote: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church- these are official doctrine:" Not so. The pope disagrees with that Catechism and is making a change in it to favor his position which seems insupportable in light of Catholic Tradition. The pope's subject matter is irrelevant to this discussion. I prefer the catechism that Pope Benedict described while he was Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as, "the most important Catholic Catechism". He made this comment after the publication of the catechism you are quoting. He was speaking of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This catechism was expressly designed to enable pastors to have a guide for systematic instructions to the faithful. I am a little troubled at the way the new catechism seems to expect the faithful to "continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God..." Did Moses or the prophets do that? No. Did Christ and the Apostles do that? No. Even the Nicene Creed retains language that is "limited, image-bound or imperfect." The Church has always allowed for figurative language to help describe God and His kingdom for the very aid of our minds which now "see" only with the "eye" of faith. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems difficult for the heart to love such a God, as He deserves, and as we should thirst for, with the kind of literalist language the new catechism seems to be recommending. The catechisms are correct in affirming what you seem to be saying is impossible, the Catholic teaching that God is both immanent and transcendent. Call it a mystery or a paradox, but that is our faith. Both catechisms also emphasize the necessity of prayer implying that God takes an interest in us. "In the first place the necessity of prayer should be insisted upon. Prayer is a duty not only recommended by way of counsel, but also commanded by obligatory precept." (Catechism of Trent, Part IV: The Lord's Prayer) Like The Nehor, I do not know know why you insist that any transcendent God would not or could not take notice of our prayers. I do understand why anyone might be filled with wonder that such a Being would have an interest in us. I do understand why someone, unfamiliar with, or not believing Catholic tradition might have a reasonable fear that such a God would find finite creatures to be beneath his notice. A Catholic should understand King David as an example of one who saw God as being both transcendent and immanent. In Psalm 8, we see that David was filled with admiration that his God was so magnificent as to be "elevated above the heavens." A Catholic will read this and see nothing except language that is trying to express transcendence over the created universe. What follows shows the royal psalmist filled with even greater delight and wonder at the certainty that a Being of such greatness would have any interest in us. ---Ps. 8:1, 5 3DOP
  2. You know of them from being in the Puget Sound area? I have friends who grew up going to cmri. Near Puyallup or somewhere on that side of I-5? I have no experience of them. I think they are sedevacantist going back to Pius XII. I dunno. I THINK they are wrong, but I don't know. I think it is best to wait for Providence to sort out the mess. It is beyond my competence. I think it is prudent to assume and behave for now, as though Francis is pope. I have associated myself with a priestly fraternity that takes that position. One could call it papal agnostism. Maybe a future pope and council will say that CMRI were right.
  3. Today, that sounds a little harsh. It is hard to escape the "circle" that I mentioned. It makes for hell on earth, even if you don't believe in eternal hell. I know because I have been caught up in it, and still get entangled from time to time. We should have mercy with each other because of this, knowing we are all subject to the same frailties. Yesterday, I spent hours on a serious reply from a distinctly Catholic perspective, Poptart, but it became disorganized and I did not think it would make good enough sense to you or others. I do not think I have time to recompose it in a satisfactory manner. That is what I meant by "I'm not the guy for your questions." Be assured of my continuing concern for your well-being and happiness. God bless you, Rory
  4. You are nice? You are never judgmental or mean? Do you love "ethnic Irish and Italians", even if you are deluded into thinking they "hate the natives and the asians there and were all about the manifest destiny bit yet they feel entitled for society to raise and protect their bratty kids while they do nothing. Contemporary American entitlement right there..."? Are you escaping the circle of hate yourself? I'm not the guy for your questions. Take care.
  5. Thank you for encouraging me, poptart. However, you can not very successfully use the Knights of Malta as an example of "Catholics who insist on going to mass, no birth control, the kids being raised Catholic etc."? Pope Francis did not mind, but conservatives and Traditionalists in the Church disapprove of the Knights because they have failed to uphold the Catholic teaching on birth control, and perhaps abortion too. You like their vestments? They seemed drab to me. They use the new liturgy. Now that IS drab. "The scandal caused by the Knights of Malta distributing condoms through its charitable arm exploded publicly at the end of 2016. That’s when the Order’s Grand Master Fra’ Matthew Festing ordered Grand Chancellor Albrecht von Boeselager to resign from his position. It was Boeselager who oversaw MI and who was ultimately responsible for approving the projects that not only distributed condoms and contraceptive pills, but abortifacient pills as well. But Boeselager refused to step down, forcing Festing to exert his position to entirely remove him from the Order. Then, in a series of surprise moves, Pope Francis demanded that Festing resign from his position, which he did, and went on to reinstate the official dismissed for peddling contraception. The move was surprising given that the Knights of Malta is a sovereign entity and has no official connection to the Pope or the Vatican." ----https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/knights-of-malta-staff-defends-condoms-in-leaked-email-new-popepublicly-sta You showed a Mass presided at by Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais! Bravo. I do not speak German. Do you know what was the occasion? The three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are so busy giving Confirmations around the world that I am guessing that is what this was. I believe he confirmed my son and my nephews and gave conditional Confirmations to my wife and I. I have been privileged to be seated next to his excellency at a dinner hosted by some friends, and I have spoken with him on other occasions. He is soft-spoken and kind, but very earnest and serious. He is French but has been living in Chicago for the last few years and at around 70, I think his English has improved. My son was in our seminary where Bp. Tissier has recently moved, and he has some amusing anecdotes about how the little man has a large presence about him that can make even an experienced priest a little nervous to make sure the ceremonies are done with precision. I guess I forgot about the Society of St. Pius X. Thanks for the reminder, heh. 3DOP
  6. What makes you think that these people in this picture are "some Catholics who insist on going to mass, no birth control, the kids being raised Catholic etc."? Are there any words to go along with the pictures? I hope you are correct and that is what they believe. Maybe I am being rash in thinking that they are like you. Maybe you are being rash in thinking that they are like me!
  7. No picture...deleted on purpose
  8. "Are they as annoying as some Catholics who insist on going to mass, no birth control, the kids being raised Catholic etc." I am pleased Poptart, that you are familiar with "some Catholics who insist on going to mass, no birth control, the kids being raised Catholic etc." I thought we were very few and far between. In a way, if not for faith, I would think we are about to be extinct to look at Rome today and "Catholics" today. Tell me about "some Catholics...etc." Encourage me.
  9. No way. Really? You have met Catholics like that and I am not related to them? They are not my friends? I thought I was an endangered species!!!
  10. Okay. That's fine. It was kind of spontaneous. My bad for distracting. Back to topic.
  11. Good point Ahab. It does appear that before the Messiah came and was crucified, Jews thought more highly of Abraham than they apparently do in this age. While LDS/Protestants would not accept that these passages from the Catholic Scriptures are canonical, I doubt that anyone would dispute that these passages represent Jewish sentiments before the Messiah came and was crucified: "They must remember how our father Abraham was tempted, and being proved by many tribulations, was made the friend of God." [Judith 8:22] "And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children." [Tobias (Tobit) 6:22]---(as a side note, this passage might help explain to non-Catholics why Catholics have difficulty saying that the primary purpose in marriage is the enjoyment of the moment/love of spouse. It is hard for us to accept the idea that enjoyment of the moment/love of spouse is the primary purpose of marriage. Love of spouse/enjoyment of the moment IS a secondary GOOD, undeniably. However, the primary purpose of marriage is to make children who will populate God's kingdom. We may be thankful that God gave us other strong and HOLY incentives to motivate us to the primary purpose of marriage.) "Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations, and there was not found the like to him in glory, who kept the law of the most High, and was in covenant with him." [Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 44:20] "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was reputed to him unto justice?" [1 Machabees 2:52]
  12. I liked your post for everything except...I am happily persuaded that truth is beautiful. The good news is that reality is good and beautiful. If my Catholic religion is false, it proposes the most fantastically wonderful fiction that could be imagined. I could be deceived, but I am of the belief, the happy belief, that my religion is real. My authority figures are dead. They were once on earth. Why do they have to be living at the same time as I am? I am not alone. I am guided the "dead", who are really more alive elsewhere than they were when they dwelt on earth. This is what Catholics mean when we recite the Apostles Creed in the ninth clause..."I believe in the communion of the saints". It means among other things, that we are not separated by death. There will always remain an intimate link between the dead and the living. What is the difference if my authority figure is alive in heaven or alive on earth in Rome? He says the same thing from heaven as he said in Rome on earth. Gotta go...my dear boy is calling from overseas...God bless changed...on your journey. The willingness to be changed remains critical, but harder as we get older, at least on the natural level. May we retain the willingness to be changed.
  13. Hi changed, According to both Testaments, Abraham passed the test. "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that received the promises, offered up his only begotten son; (To whom it was said: In Isaac shall thy seed be called.) Accounting that God is able to raise up even from the dead." (Heb. 11:17-19) As Kevin Christensen points out, Abraham expected to return with Isaac alive according to Gen. 22:5. Abraham had confidence in God's promise, that through Isaac, his (Abraham's) seed would be called, even if the seed (Isaac) was to be first sacrificed. The rest of Genesis 22 is all full of praise and reward for Abraham's deed. The New Testament, following that lead, expands upon it, in Heb. 11, and other places. There is another hint in v. 7 or 8 of Gen. 22 that Abraham was expecting a deliverance from this test of faith. When Isaac asks his father where was the victim, Abraham discreetly replies that God would provide the victim. And so He did. Look at verses 16-18 of Gen. 22: "By my own self have I sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake: I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice." I have faith in the historical record, but even more certainty that subsequent inspired commentary finds the act praiseworthy. In Abram/Abraham, we see God's dealings with one had been uniquely prepared for this test of faith. God knew that Isaac would live. Abraham showed that he believed that Isaac must live. Abraham had a clear conscience in this matter, because authority (God) had shown Himself to be worthy of Abraham's trust that Isaac would live. As for whether God should make this request, whatever Abraham does, Isaac lives, even if Abraham's faith in God's promises falter. ------------------------------------- In the opening post you write: "I have thought similar things- that we are supposed to refuse to follow orders which go against our conscience, even if those orders come from apostles, prophets, or even G-d," Believing myself to be a faithful son of the Catholic Church and obedient to God, I have been disobedient to living popes and bishops of the Catholic Church for nearly fifteen years. I am sympathetic to anyone who points out the moral deficiency of pleading obedience to authority when our consciences should be troubled by "obedience". To plead authority to do what we believe to be wrong is lack of courage, and false obedience. I would caution that when authority asks us to do something which we perceive to be against our conscience, we should carefully examine our consciences in light of what authority may say in defense of the request or command. The soul with a well-formed conscience will fear self-deception, knowing that their own pride and stubborn wilfulness can hide itself behind "conscience". 3DOP
  14. Calm. I trust you won't be embarrassed, but you once asked me, perhaps on a whim, to have a Mass said for you. I don't think you knew what that meant. It probably meant more to me. But it was done. A Traditional Latin Mass! It gives me hope. It couldn't be for nothing. God bless you now and always. John XXIII famously opened the windows of the Church to the world. The world is so great isn't it? It so leads us to truth and goodness and everything we could ever want (sarcasm, not very PC).Vatican II opened "windows" in the 60's. Modern Mormons opened "doors" in the 2010's. 50 years late, but not much difference. Now "Catholics" and "Mormons" can believe whatever they want and behave however they want. Who is anybody to judge? We have a pope who won't genuflect before the Holy Eucharist (the Lord Jesus Christ) on one knee, but goes down on both knees to politicians (Communists/Globalists) he admires. I don't need to, but I if pressed, I would follow Bruce McConkie and Dan Petersen ahead of Jorge Bergoglio. I like Old Mormonism, but I have Eternal Rome. The democracy of the dead. Hundreds of good dead popes against one living infidel. Let all souls vote, dead or alive. I know that I know the result. Gay Francis and his queer cronies lose. Bergoglianism could never build the monuments of Rome or the liturgical splendour that has supplied the spiritual nourishment of saints for 2,000 years. I support Mormons who oppose Pope Francis over Catholics who support him. I don't say it saves sacramentally, but I would have more extra-sacramental hope for pre-Vatican II Mormonism, than post Vatican II Catholicism. Have I lured you out of hiding Miserere Nobis? You are welcome to "balance me out" (correct my rant). But except that you are a little bit of a lefty politically...I don't see how you can't agree with much/most of what I say. But correct me. I am listening.
  • Create New...