Jump to content

3DOP

Contributor
  • Content Count

    2,867
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,779 Excellent

About 3DOP

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • 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

4,064 profile views
  1. I am sorry too. Maybe you will do better another time. Good night.
  2. No problem Spammer. I think it started when I expressed surprise that Plato has to be classified with those who hold that matter is eternal. This is still in the starkest contrast to what I have been taught as a Catholic. It still makes the claim that the Council Fathers were in love with Plato less tenable.
  3. Thanks for the advice guys. I don't care about learning about Plato. I am only interested in the damage that can be done to my faith if Council Fathers could be shown to have an undue attachment to Plato that blinded them to the truths of the Gospel. It is becoming apparent that the entire evidence against the Council Fathers, doesn't in the least rely on proposing that they adopted Plato's actual beliefs about God. Rather, because I am seeing for the first time that the entire case rests on a word that can be translated into English as "substance", "nature", or "essence", which as a bonus, is used in Scripture ("divine nature"), I could not be interested to learn any more about Plato. I am satisfied with what you guys say.
  4. Why no, I am not tired now, thanks for your concern. I must admit that I could not finish mowing my yard in the Kansas heat this afternoon, and so I came to the discussion feeling pretty exhausted physically, but somehow now, I am feeling a lot better. On the contrary, I feel rather energized. Where am I imagining that "it" says Plato was a materialist? I imagine that the "where" was here, on this message board, and the "it" was a person who identifies as Spammer. Until now, you have been consistently silent or occasionally confirmed that you agree with Spammer about what Plato believed about God and the Cosmos, and that it would in no way reflect the beliefs of the Fathers of Nicea. To this point, your strategy has been pretty limited to this thing about that word. Okay, you finally want to disagree with Spammer about what Plato believed about something. Maybe it touched a nerve that the question can be raised about whether Plato would fit in better with the LDS Cosmos than with the Catholic/Orthodox? I can't care much about that except the irony is rather appealing. It doesn't help you show how the Nicene Fathers were devoted to Plato, if he believed something else wacky, instead of your kind of materialism, that they also threw on the trashheap. It would remove the irony, and that would be disappointing considering how delicious it would be. But it fails utterly to demonstrate that there was some kind of undue attachment by the Nicene Fathers in favor of Plato and against the Gospel. If Plato believed in unreal matter or real matter doesn't matter. Heh. Creedal Christians reject Plato on that subject whatever he believed. It is beginning to appear that Plato thought more and more like you, and less and less like me than I had assumed.
  5. Spammer, heh. I don't want to, you've spoiled the ending. Thanks for all the good work and study. What a breath of fresh air. I didn't give it a like, but I liked a lot of what you said regarding transubstantiation. By the way, isn't the word "sacrament" a synonym for the English "mystery"? Take a look at Ep. 5:32 sometime. Most English translations use the word "mystery" where the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible uses "sacrament". In that passage the church is not speaking of one of the seven sacraments or mysteries, but of another "mystery". I think we are okay with labelling the sacraments as mysteries, and that the Greek in Ep. 5:32 is probably better translated in English as mystery. The Latin Vulgate has translated the word as "sacrament". " This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia. " Latin/English translation of Ep. 5:32
  6. It does not seem like this does much to help your cause. So let me get this straight. Plato is a materialist who denies the reality of matter? The Council Fathers were not really very keen on that concept of Plato either.
  7. It makes a difference when you were born if somebody says you had influence on the theory of relativity. Did you influence Einstein before you were born? Did Augustine influence the creeds before he was born? Unless he did, your citation of a website that tries to demonstrate that Augustine was a Platonist, doesn't speak to Spammer's question regarding what the creeds take from Plato. You fairly quickly responded above by asking me if "consubstantial" was still in the creed. I thought that was a concession to my point, but a valid way of retrenching. Okay. You don't want that? I am willing to let others judge for themselves whether it answers Spammer's question for mfbukowski to show that after the creeds were written, Augustine was influenced by Platonic thought.
  8. I am "liking" this having not read much Plato, and assuming he taught ex nihilo. Am I the only one who will admit to being so ignorant? And Plato taught matter was eternal! This has to be a dream. hehe
  9. You are tired? It does seem tedious to make such an uproar over this word which led Plato to believe more like you than me. The Fathers of the Council obviously could use this word without caring what Plato believed about God. Wow. When Plato employed this terrible word, it didn't lead anywhere near the Creeds of the Catholic Church! It leaves me incredulous to have discovered that after all these years of being a Platonist by default since I am Catholic, Plato's "god", doesn't even remotely resemble the God of the creeds who created out of nothing. Amazing.
  10. Mark, everyone. Hi. Mark, you were responding to a remark by Spammer that affirmed that the Church rejects Platonic notions about God, when he challenged someone to tell us what had been borrowed from Plato by Creedal Christians. Spammer has affirmed, what I do not know, that Creedal Christians deny Plato's most fundamental ideas on God and cosmology. So far there are no challenges to this affirmation. Are we proceeding with the assumption that this is true? I want the bad news now if Spammer's claims cannot be verified. "Which is why all of the above in Plato was condemned by the Church. Plato's god is alien and far removed from the Trinitarian god. So what exactly did Creedal Christians get from Plato?" (Spammer, from p. 3 in this thread, above) Good question Spammer. I'll keep reading. Does it make a difference that St. Augustine wasn't even born when the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds were written? He was still a Manichean dualist when the Creed of Constantinople came out. He had no influence at all on those documents. It doesn't seem like it answers Spammer's question about what the "Creedal Christians" borrowed from Plato, by pointing to someone who wasn't available when the creeds were formulated. When I read Spammer's question, it makes me think of those, alleged of hellenizing, who wrote the creeds, not those who had to follow the creeds after the alleged hellenization occurred. (I am still on p. 3. My apologies if this has been addressed.)
  11. Oh wow. Oops. I have never heard of him. I like commentaries. Is he one of the Fathers of the Church?
  12. A sin I am willing to commit? No. You can't say that. Say it isn't a sin. No. Defend it. Defend it. Defend it. I think you clearly show that you have a desire to follow godly precepts. Defend what you do as being appropriate. If you truly think it is a sin, however slight, don't do it. I like you Mustard Seed. I am not judging. There is great value in some nude art for persons who have practised a custody of the eyes. Others are unable to view it without it causing impure thoughts. Surely there is similar value in what you are watching. Maybe it would be a danger, an occasion of sin for others but not you. There is this artsy movie, with a very young Al Pacino and old Burt Lancaster, an Italian production called 1900. It is about political upheavals in Italian society at the turn of the 20the Century. I didn't look away at all of the nudity. If I ever watch again I will. But I had a clear conscience because that was not why I was watching it. I think this is similar to this Yellowstone thing for you. You are just talking about either subject matter that is questionable at some level, or visual images that you wish weren't there. Surely that is not WHY you watch. But if it is at any level sinful, you have to stop. Let the world explode, if it means committing the slightest sin on purpose to save it from blowing up. Please don't be offended. God love you. Surely it is not necessarily a sin to watch this show for proper reasons and a disposition to avoid bad ideology and immoral imagery.
  13. Who is Fitzmeyer? Does everybody here except me know Fitzmeyer? It sounds like there are Catholics who argue about what language was used in Mt 16:18. I would not be among them. I don't know anything about that stuff. It sounds like I need to stop being Catholic unless Peter was ignorant of Greek, and if "rock" is masculine, its curtains? I am skeptical. I don't think I am committed to the premises. This sounds like sola sciptura Catholicism (protestantism). They are out there. These whack job Novus Ordos think they can prove the Catholic faith from the Bible alone, and the Protestant shortened version at that. Why they use that pea shooter when they have a cannon in Apostolic Tradition, I don't know. I have said it many times. Scripture alone never resolves doctrinal controversy. They would do much better to admit the limitations of biblical arguments, in my opinion. You guys do great with Mt. 16. I remember the first time I heard Scott Pierson (pacumeni 9) explain Mt. 16 at ZLMB. He didn't bother with Aramaic and Greek, let alone Fitzmeyer and genders of words in different languages. It was just English translation. I will never believe that God set things up so that you need to know Fitzmeyer, or the Greek and Aramaic, to avoid being deceived by Catholic lies. I digress though. So anyway, I said to myself, about Scott's explanation, "Yup. That works." He explained as an LDS the whole passage as being comparable to the Resurrection. The gates of hell not prevailing doesn't necesarily require that there is no apostasy, as these goofy Novus Ordo Catholics argue from Scripture alone. Scott showed that Mt. 16 could be perfectly conformable to the idea that there was a death (an apostasy of the church), but that as Christ died and rose again, so the Church, perceived as dead, revived, and was restored. Sure. A Catholic shouldn't expect the other side to just be stupid. Everybody makes clever use of the Scripture according to their beliefs and traditions. The Catholic view of Mt. 16:18 is only "plausible" from Scripture alone, whether or not rocks are males or females. Only by consulting authority that non-Catholics reject out of hand because they believe the Scripture alone is adequate, is doctrinal controversy resolved, and unity among the Apostle's Latter-day disciples (21st Century Traditional Catholics) maintained.
  14. Hey Scott,

    I know I am going to get trounced for what I just posted. I have always appreciated how you communicate.

    I use too much "stream-of-consciousness" in my writing, trying to shove in every idea as it pops in to my imagination. That is my biggest fault. Like right now when I am little excited. How can they not appreciate the significant difference between a direct quote, where one retrieves a book like I did this afternoon, versus a memory from 20 years ago? People don't want to learn the rules. They want you to figure out what they mean even if they don't know how to say it. It diminishes their argument against somebody who loves his "truth" and is willing to make some effort at precision and craft. In debate, how can you be expecting your opponent to allow you to get away with such sloppiness, or possible disingenuousness?

    Anyways, on this subject of clarity of expression, I'll always be in your corner.

    Okay...now I'll go and face the mob.

    Have a great day.

    Rory

     

  15. ALarson, Maybe I am just the crabby old man who doesn't like things the way they are, compared to the way they used to be (paraphrase from a character, Grumpy Old Man sketch featuring Dana Carvey, Saturday Night Live, late 80's or early 90's). I didn't even read it closely enough to know what side The Narrarator is on. I saw something in quotes. It seemed fair to ask for clarification. I want to understand what people mean, and it is difficult, especially if the rules for communication are really changing as dramatically as has been suggested. I understand organic change. Witness the Catholic liturgy, which has always undergone developmental change, until Vatican II. I fear for our language what Cardinal Ratzinger observed in the Catholic New Mass, that sadly, the New Mass is an "on-the-spot product". It means that the new liturgy was inorganic, fabricated. I think any change in linguistic rules that fails to recognize the significant difference between a direct quote from an authority figure which can be verified by a call for references, and a mere paraphrase from memory, is likewise inorganic, fabricated. A corruption. I can't see why quotes would be appropriate for either kind of communication under the new rules. Why would the new rule makers want a paraphrase and a direct quote to be indistinguishable? I am just trying to explain to you ALarson, and others, why I care about this question. I wouldn't like rule changes that diminish the weight of an argument when I am directly quoting a figure of great authority about something that is important. I don't want confusion over whether that's just Rory's recollection or an actual, precise quote of something that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote or said. I am not against change. I am against inorganic change. It seems to me that this generation wants to overthrow EVERYTHING under the guise of development. Modernists don't care about what they have received from their fathers. There is no respect for the reasons why language, and liturgy, and morality have developed up to this point. What is certain is that for modernists, they will not let old rules get in the way of whatever agenda they have. Modern "development" ("development" = rupture that is claimed to be development using old rules of linguistics. See how much harder it is to communicate without rules that are set and agreed upon? Explanation after explanation. Words, words, and more words.) appears to me to be simply corruption. A rule change that allows a person to use quotes for a mere paraphrase is rupture. This is not in the least a personal attack on anyone. I do not want arguments to be unduly magnified or diminished by a rupture in the rules. It would be so helpful if we all played the same rules. I jumped in because I thought Scott had a valid question. I think he doubted that there was a direct quote. Presumably he DID have a good idea about what was meant. I think he wanted clarification without casting aspersion on The Narrarator. I am so weary of rule changes in language and morals and baseball(!) and everything else in this age, which are not even close to what I learned, and was universally acknowledged as the norm when I was young. Vatican II modernism can't even leave baseball alone. I don't like Novus Ordo Baseball. If this offends the new rule makers, it is not my intent. I certainly don't have any concern about the subject of the plates or the stones anymore. My purpose is to try to make an argument that legitimate rule changes in any discipline cannot occur abruptly, and without an appreciation for the previous rules. A longer quote from Cardinal Ratzinger will follow. It should be noted that this is translated from a preface to the French edition of a book by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, called the Reform of the Roman Liturgy, published by Una Voce/Una Voce Press, USA in 1993. From the back cover, using traditional rules for the use of quotes (" '): "J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development'... (I don't know what you call this thing:' under the rules I learned as a young man, it indicates a quote within a quote, a quote of Ratzinger quoting Jungmann) What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process---with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." Of course, almost everything is more important than baseball. The Catholic liturgy is most important to me. But I see the symptoms of what happened when the Church changed the liturgy in everything around me. That is what I oppose, not seer stones. Not gold plates. Certainly not The Narrarator. Thanks so much to anyone who would try to see why some old guy cares about something so much, which most others find to be trivial, the use of quotation marks. It is because a new use of quotation marks would, in his opinion, be symptomatic of a new and virulent ideological disease not known in the immediate past. A past which many are convinced offers little of value, and which needs to be remembered only for the purpose that it be held up for derision in our times. One wonders where it can lead. Regards, Rory
×
×
  • Create New...