The Nehor Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: This is intriguing. Why would God set up His Church and then intentionally ruin it? The idea that God worked so hard to build the church and would not just give it up is an appealing one but one can say the same thing about the Jews they replaced. I would not call it intentional ruination, more allowing its ruination as it was rejected. On 6/29/2019 at 5:10 PM, 3DOP said: If it is to defile yourself to marry, then consecrated celibacy isn't even a sacrifice to us. We would be like the Shakers and Albigenses who thought marital union was evil. To us marriage is a holy Sacrament and source of grace. We HAVE to hold that marriage is one of the very greatest good gifts of God to His children. You can't offer up that which is defiled to God; even the animals have to be the most perfect. The basis for consecrated celibacy cannot have a foundation in ideas about marital union being icky or sinful. Its foundation must be from the goodness, and not some kind of cruddiness about marital union. That it is for traditional Catholics difficult to think that Joseph should have had children with Mary stems not from any ideas of defilement. The Blessed Body of our Lord and God had dwelt in Mary's womb. That womb becomes a most sacred and hallowed place, if you will. It seems fitting to us if Joseph and Mary, in consideration of the wonders that they beheld in the virginal conception and birth of the Son of God, and their Redeemer, should choose to refrain from using their ordinary good privileges and rights. We think they thought it best if the House of God should remain ever-virgin, as the Apostolic Tradition suggests. While I get where you are coming from and the idea of giving up even the good for something better I have a hard time making it work intellectually. It makes God an ascetic and smacks too much of Greek philosophy about matter bad and spirit good. Why does one have to give up marriage to find more holiness? Why is physical pleasure an obstacle to spiritual growth? An excess of it can be a distraction but that is true of almost everything. My being single gives me opportunities to serve in ways I otherwise could not and it may be that it is part of a divine plan for me to grow or serve in some way but choosing it? It just seems off to me. I guess I see God as a hedonist. Not in the pejorative sense but that God has delights and sensations and joys to give including the physical or why would there be a physical resurrection? This life is an attempt to get to the real ones. How does intentionally cutting yourself off from the shadows of heaven draw one nearer to God? Of course there are things we should not seek because they are unlawful and some pleasures are denied to some in this life either by loss of ability or by being forbidden for reasons we do not always understand such as color from the blind, music from the deaf, sex from the castrated or homosexual, love from the psychopath, wine from the saints of this dispensation, etc. Edited July 2, 2019 by The Nehor 2 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes , and not all Christians were being martyred. Also, the Great Apostasy is not an LDS claim about all aspects of religion, but rather is restricted to loss of authority. I'm not sure it's limited to authority. Authority seems not to have been significant to Joseph until fairly late. Even the significance of the priesthood keys doesn't appear to be something Joseph understood when given him. (Critics use that to argue he made up the visits at a late date) Anyway, the focus of the young Joseph appears to be lost doctrines and skepticism towards Biblical authority as presumed in the Protestant tradition. Don't get me wrong, from a modern perspective it's authority that's key. But as I think Elder Oak's talk on keys and authority suggests we don't even ourselves fully understand it. We have especially the last 100 years more or less reified authority. Thinking through what we mean by authority is still going on. Clearly we adopt a more Catholic/Orthodox view rather than the Protestant "priesthoood of all believers." Yet how all this interacts with the apostasy seems unclear. Some of this is of course blurry. What Stapley calls the cosmological priesthood is lost both doctrinally and authoritatively. When was that lost? It's not clear. The gnostics clearly think they still have it, although they moved in a radically more platonic/mystic direction as did the remnants in Judaism within Merkhabah and Hekhalot speculation. Of course some in the Church today argue everything is more symbolic pointing to a more platonic sense. However early Christiantiy seems unusually physicalist in how it interprets things - particularly the resurrection and the visit to the realm of the dead during the three days. It's perhaps unsurprising that the gnostics end up embracing and often copying Coffin Texts for their secrets. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A lot of good, sincere Christians were deeply moved by the teachings of the Apostles, and carried on those teachings throughout the Empire. In fact, the notion of the sacred Magisterium makes good sense. It's worth noting that if by the Hellenistic period a lot of teachings of the Messiah had been lost with the conception being a purely political yet local rescue. (Ignoring here the idea of two Messiahs that pops up in both Hellenistic apocalypses and the Dead Sea Scrolls) That is the focus was restoring the Kingdom of Solomon or David effectivley. The more personal aspects of the atonement persisted through the period of the apostasy. So I think we, as members, should be careful not to overstate the apostasy. (Or rather the key apostasy seems to have happened by well meaning figures around the time of the exile) What is lost is that focus on death and salvation from death. It becomes transfigured into a kind of easy salvation. However going the other way, it's not exactly clear what the truth is. That gets into how to interpret the temple and the keys each person is given therein. Yet precisely there's arguably not a consensus even today. How can we understand the apostasy if we don't even understand what was restored? Edited July 2, 2019 by clarkgoble 2 Link to comment
3DOP Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 (edited) On 7/2/2019 at 1:11 PM, The Nehor said: While I get where you are coming from and the idea of giving up even the good for something better I have a hard time making it work intellectually. It makes God an ascetic and smacks too much of Greek philosophy about matter bad and spirit good. Why does one have to give up marriage to find more holiness? Why is physical pleasure an obstacle to spiritual growth? An excess of it can be a distraction but that is true of almost everything. My being single gives me opportunities to serve in ways I otherwise could not and it may be that it is part of a divine plan for me to grow or serve in some way but choosing it? It just seems off to me. I guess I see God as a hedonist. Not in the pejorative sense but that God has delights and sensations and joys to give including the physical or why would there be a physical resurrection? This life is an attempt to get to the real ones. How does intentionally cutting yourself off from the shadows of heaven draw one nearer to God? Of course there are things we should not seek because they are unlawful and some pleasures are denied to some in this life either by loss of ability or by being forbidden for reasons we do not always understand such as color from the blind, music from the deaf, sex from the castrated or homosexual, love from the psychopath, wine from the saints of this dispensation, etc. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration. God an ascetic? He asks us to voluntarily, with holy resignation, carry our crosses, does he not? He voluntarily, with holy resignation, carried a cross, did He not? We accept the situation in which Providence (God) places us. This life will never be free of suffering. Some of that suffering will be physical, some of that suffering will be spiritual/mental/immaterial (pick a word). We don't love pain, whether physical or spiritual. We cannot will to have an attraction to that which is painful. But we can find purpose in it. Jesus taught us that self-indulgence, whether it be in spiritual or physical goods, is harmful to the soul, and so it seems to me like he practised what some would call ascetism. He denied Himself food for forty days after His baptism by John. Was He trying to teach us that food (matter) was bad? I know you don't believe that. Neither do I. Physical pleasure is undeniably a great good, a gift from God. The best way to moderate lawful pleasures of the senses, so that we do not become too attached to them, is to practise some form of self-denial. Asceticism. You guys fast once in a while. Why? Is matter bad? I think it is fairly self-evident that in our current state, there is not much danger that we become too detached from the pleasures of the body because we are over-indulgent with regard to pleasures of the spirit. I vehemently deny that matter is bad. Both matter and spirit are good. It is much easier to become immoderate in physical pleasure than in spiritual pleasure. As this relates to marriage, clearly the Catholic Church believes that for some select souls, they can attain to greater sanctity apart from marriage. It is also taught that this has to be a vocation, a calling. It cannot be forced. It is a question of discernment on the part of the individual as well as the situation and counsel that Providence has given. If you want to be a priest, but no bishop is willing to ordain you, guess what? You are not called to the priesthood. Marriage is meant to help help people get to heaven. The Church teaches that it is very difficult to stay in a state of grace, (to go to heaven), if one refuses their vocation. If there is a calling to marriage, then one cannot be more holy by trying to be a monk or a nun. For such a person, being a monk or nun, would lead to ruin, to unholiness. Finally, I would insist that consecrated celibacy, where one officially makes vows according to some kind of religious rule, is good and permissible. But there are also some who are called to neither marriage, nor religious vows of celibacy. Not just those who die young, before marriageable age, but for one reason or other, are never provided with a spouse. I know that this can be lamentable for some. I have one dear friend, beloved by all, now nearly 60, who wouldn't have it any other way. He is eccentric of course, like most womenless men, including old priests. Eccentricity can be annoying but it has to be tolerated by us married (normal) folk. Heh. Not a sin. Indeed, among our brothers and sisters in the faith, such eccentricity should be endearing. But anyway, if the Catholic faith is true, the human part of heaven will be mostly populated by souls who were sanctified in holy matrimony. Edited July 4, 2019 by 3DOP 1 Link to comment
Vance Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 On 7/1/2019 at 8:14 PM, MiserereNobis said: This is intriguing. Why would God set up His Church and then intentionally ruin it? The apostasy would have been the result of the free will actions of men. God need not be involved. I have noticed that God rarely prevents the evil actions of men, he simply compensates/accounts for them. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 3 minutes ago, Vance said: The apostasy would have been the result of the free will actions of men. God need not be involved. I have noticed that God rarely prevents the evil actions of men, he simply compensates/accounts for them. And plans for them. Link to comment
Vance Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 On 7/2/2019 at 12:17 PM, mfbukowski said: Celibacy was established in 1139 It sure seems to be causing (or at least a contributor to) much grief in the Catholic Church these days. 1 Link to comment
Vance Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 Just now, The Nehor said: And plans for them. Yup, and plans ahead for them. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 15 hours ago, 3DOP said: Thanks for your thoughtful consideration. God an ascetic? He asks us to voluntarily, with holy resignation, carry our crosses, does he not? He voluntarily, with holy resignation, carried a cross, did He not? We accept the situation in which Providence (God) places us. This life will never be free of suffering. Some of that suffering will be physical, some of that suffering will be spiritual/mental/immaterial (pick a word). We don't love pain, whether physical or spiritual. We cannot will to have an attraction to that which is painful. But we can find purpose in it. Jesus taught us that self-indulgence, whether it be in spiritual or physical goods, is harmful to the soul, and so it seems to me like he practised what some would call ascetism. He denied Himself food for forty days after His baptism by John. Was He trying to teach us that food (matter) was bad? I know you don't believe that. Neither do I. Physical pleasure is undeniably a great good, a gift from God. The best way to moderate lawful pleasures of the senses, so that we do not become too attached to them, is to practise some form of self-denial. Asceticism. You guys fast once in a while. Why? Is matter bad? I think it is fairly self-evident that in our current state, there is not much danger that we become too detached from the pleasures of the body because we are over-indulgent with regard to pleasures of the spirit. I vehemently deny that matter is bad. Both matter and spirit are good. It is much easier to become immoderate in physical pleasure than in spiritual pleasure. As this relates to marriage, clearly the Catholic Church believes that for some select souls, they can attain to greater sanctity apart from marriage. It is also taught that this has to be a vocation, a calling. It cannot be forced. It is a question of discernment on the part of the individual as well as the situation and counsel that Providence has given. If you want to be a priest, but no bishop is willing to ordain you, guess what? You are not called to the priesthood. Marriage is meant to help help people get to heaven. The Church teaches that it is very difficult to stay in a state of grace, (to go to heaven), if one refuses their vocation. If there is a calling to marriage, then one cannot be more holy by trying to be a monk or a nun. For such a person, being a monk or nun, would lead to ruin, to unholiness. Finally, I would insist that consecrated celibacy, where one officially makes vows according to some kind of religious rule, is good and permissible. But there are also some who are called to neither marriage, nor religious vows of celibacy. Not just those who die young, before marriageable age, but for one reason or other, are never provided with a spouse. I know that this can be lamentable for some. I have one dear friend, beloved by all, now nearly 60, who wouldn't have it any other way. He is eccentric of course, like most womenless men, including old priests. Eccentricity can be annoying but it has to be tolerated by us married (normal) folk. Heh. Not a sin. Indeed, among our brothers and sisters in the faith, such eccentricity should be endearing. But anyway, if the Catholic faith is true, the human part of heaven will be mostly populated by souls who were sanctified in holy matrimony. As I said I am not opposed to sacrifice for a greater blessing later or a sacrifice to do good for others. I just despise sacrifice to no gain or purpose which is often what ascetic practices are. Feasting is better then fasting but sometimes we fast for a specific purpose. Denying the flesh for the sake of denying it is rarely healthy. Self-denial is important but only to a purpose. While it is easy to become self-indulgent asceticism comes with its own risk of sin. Falling into overindulgence is also an issue of course. Moderation is advised not to curb our pleasure but because an excess diminishes it. People who overindulge in food rarely truly enjoy it. Same with sex, physical relaxation, thrills, and the like. Those who try to hold on to one kind of joy or try to recapture it fail. Those who let it go find new ones. Those who seek privation miss out. I say God is a hedonist because His primary offerings are joy and happiness. I do not get voluntary celibacy at all but I come from a faith tradition where family life is the ideal for personal growth. I hope there are alternatives (or I am damned) but choosing it? Yeah, do not get it. 1 Link to comment
3DOP Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 45 minutes ago, Vance said: It sure seems to be causing (or at least a contributor to) much grief in the Catholic Church these days. These priests who do things to boys would make good priests if they could merely marry a woman? Who that is potentially a loving husband and father would resort to child rape if they could not find a wife? Such predators do not belong in the priesthood. None of them would make a good husband or father. Who could want someone who would commit child rape unless he can find someone to consent to marry him, as son-in-law? Neither marriage nor the priesthood are meant for such maladjusted individuals. Put yourself in the position of a Catholic. Would you want for a priest someone who would seduce your child if he can't be married? What if his wife dies? Uh oh. Child rape time. 2 Link to comment
Vance Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: These priests who do things to boys would make good priests if they could merely marry a woman? Who that is potentially a loving husband and father would resort to child rape if they could not find a wife? Such predators do not belong in the priesthood. None of them would make a good husband or father. Who could want someone who would commit child rape unless he can find someone to consent to marry him, as son-in-law? Neither marriage nor the priesthood are meant for such maladjusted individuals. Put yourself in the position of a Catholic. Would you want for a priest someone who would seduce your child if he can't be married? What if his wife dies? Uh oh. Child rape time. WOW!! Talk about trying to put words in my mouth. But I have to ask, If Priests were allowed to marry or perchance REQUIRED to be married, do you think that the Priesthood would still be as an attractive career path for pedophiles/pederasts? Link to comment
3DOP Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 20 minutes ago, Vance said: WOW!! Talk about trying to put words in my mouth. But I have to ask, If Priests were allowed to marry or perchance REQUIRED to be married, do you think that the Priesthood would still be as an attractive career path for pedophiles/pederasts? To me, the Novus Ordo Mass is cheesy and corny and mostly attended by old ladies. Pope Benedict XVI once famously called the New Mass, a "banal, on-the spot product". The seminaries of the new liturgy have something wrong with them. They are sterile and reportedly as hostile to the old missal of Tradition as Tradition is towards the New Mass. It was tragic for Paul VI to try to throw away something so beautiful and dignified, replacing it with a hoaky amateur hour. I think it is largely for this reason that the vocations crisis afflicts communities that adhere to the New Missal. They will try anything to get men to come and participate. Many want to allow marriage for priests. It still isn't going to make men want to say that Mass every day for the rest of their lives when they can't even persuade young men to keep coming to Mass on Sundays after they get old enough to refuse. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts