Jump to content

3DOP

Contributor
  • Posts

    3,222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About 3DOP

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • 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

5,036 profile views

3DOP's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

3.4k

Reputation

  1. Thanks, Jesse. Happy Feast Day! St. Luke, ora pro nobis.
  2. Poptart. Hi. There has been a misunderstanding somewhere. From some things that you said to calm further down, it appears that I have been for even a little time past at least, already odious to your sensibilities. I take this seriously. Shoot. I kind of follow you! You put up good stuff about traditional Catholic liturgies and raise provocative questions on my LDS board! But in my defense, I cannot figure out what would make you say to me, that "Naturally I'd not expect someone like you to appreciate a person this kind". Someone "like me" does not appreciate kind people? That's kind of rough, pop. What have I said to deserve that? Anyway, I trust that you have a good heart and would be glad to find I have no malice towards you, or "kind people" in general. Heh. I hope I can try to mitigate the damage done sometime soon. I don't care to say true things if it only makes enemies. I am not willing to be wrong to make friends. But if my way of saying what I think is true is offensive to everybody, there is no point in saying it, because the parties I am trying to reason with, are distanced further from my perceived truth, by my way of saying it. Anyway, for now, I sincerely regret having probably been an ignorant and insensitive fool. God love you, Poptart, and me too. Take care. Perhaps I can explain what seems to me like, my innocent beliefs, this weekend. Until then... Rory
  3. Without listening to a single minute myself, with just the picture, I agree with your first assessment, Mark. Bodybuilder Jesus crucified? No. Please, no. They didn't have that kind of knowledge of how to work the body up like that. Did they? Jesus could not/should not have been physically extraordinary like that, even in our day. He spent His spare time, using supplements and getting all that muscle at some gym in Nazareth??? When did this begin? Teenage years? Before or after He fasted in the Wilderness for forty days? That is what He looked like while being scourged at the pillar, crowned with thorns, brought before the people as a miserable figure, pitiable, a "worm and no man". I think people would still be in awe at such a sight, without miracles, AFTER scourging, AFTER crowning. AFTER crucifixion. Really...How could He look like that on the Cross, without Him having an obsession in Nazareth, for His physical appearance which would be an inappropriate distraction for the Son of God, the Son of Man, as well as the future children of God? I won't say that I won't worship Jesus if He is "buff", as daughters used to say 20 years ago about certain muscular Hollywood figures that they innocently liked. Bring on the theology. I will try to submit to reality, but it will go a little hard for me if I need to think that Jesus looks like The Terminator on the Cross.
  4. CV75, I think that is fair. Thank you for a satisfactory answer.
  5. Hi CV75. What was different in the first centuries after Christ, that allowed the "Former-day Saints" to eventually emerge from the catacombs after three centuries of bloody persecution victorious over arguably the greatest pagan empire in human history...without the divinely inspired US Constitution and its bill of rights, in contrast with the Latter-day Saints who, according to what The Plains quoted, could not have survived, or according to your words to "retain their footing"? I don't get this apparent LDS idea of submissive obedience to godless state authority if it opposes the Gospel. If the Former-day Saints had done that, we wouldn't have any kind of Christianity today, nor a bill of rights! However you would identify them by name, I am with the Former-day Saints who disobeyed man. I identify them as Catholics. We should both agree that they were certainly not modern LDS Restorationists. They did not accept that "Without a Bill of Rights, [the Roman Empire] could not have served as the host nation for the [Proclamation] of the gospel..." They would not obey Caesar when Caesar opposed Christ. "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men". (Ac. 5:29) Maybe you agree that if it comes down to a conflict we obey Christ rather than Caesar. But at times it seems like your beliefs seem to be that there will never be such a conflict. What do you say about the early church. Should those Christians have sacrificed to idols in obedience to the State? I suggest that there are times when God makes his children choose between state and church, between man and God. Certainly in the the first three centuries. Maybe in the next few? Rory
  6. The point is that non-restored Christianity has spread in the absence of bills of rights.
  7. No empty content? Can't just delete a regretted remark that has escaped notice? This does just that.
  8. Politics in the first sentence. Politics in the last sentence. You see Luther's questioning of indulgences for the poor souls in Purgatory as political? I am intrigued. Please explain. I have been to Rome in our own century. I doubt that what outraged me was nicer than what Luther found. Whatever Luther thought, the priesthood survives outrage, if we can believe both Testaments. Unlike Luther, who wouldn't take his outrage to its logical conclusion, I hold that if his outrage was just, mere reformation was inadequate. This is why I continue to talk to LDS...the consistent "lutherans". Ecclesiology.
  9. Hi Maureen. The Catholic Church makes truly extravagant claims, which are either true or false. Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia means in English, No Salvation Outside the Church (Catholic Church). I hope that explains a little why I would say that to be non-Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church is false. It seems hard to think that a non-Catholic could think such a teaching to be inconsequential. I am glad if Protestants agree with Catholics about Trinitarian doctrine. But it concerns me about why they agree. For a Catholic, it is important to deny that Scripture alone is sufficient to prove the Nicene Trinity. I am confident that Scripture alone is insufficient. Sometimes I fear that LDS and Protestants think that we think the Bible alone is enough. Without Tradition, we could believe as most LDS do, or as Calvin! ----- By the way, "Godhead vs. Trinity"? If I am not delusional, I have seen that here somewhere. For Catholics, the Godhead derives exclusively from the Father, the Fount of divinity, who eternally begets a Son, from whom the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. Godhead and Trinity are necessarily compatible ideas according to a correct understanding of the Catholic faith. My apologies, I have forgotten who mentioned this.
  10. Hi poptart. I think somebody owes something? I am sorry if I have alienated. I think you misunderstand. I was not suggesting anything like a debt from Protestants to the Catholic Church, when I said that "Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking with the Catholic Church". The "gravity" means that Protestants can't appeal to anything except the Bible if they call LDS non-Christian. That seems like a grave difficulty to a non-Protestant like me. As a Catholic, I cannot prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone. That was all that I meant. I doubt Luther, or you, or anyone can prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone. As soon as they were cut off from Catholic Tradition, many Protestants have gone far away from the Nicene Trinity. That was a good point made, I think, by Anakin7. John Calvin rejected Nicea when he affirmed that Christ was "autotheos". That means that Jesus would be God the Son, independently of the Father. That is as blasphemous to Catholic ears as anything the LDS might say. In what respect can a son be independent of a father?. https://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/02/is-there-a-calvinist-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
  11. Mark...I would truly be displeased to see you go. This is just personal. It would make things easier for me around here with you out of the way! Virtually everything I write and much of what I don't write is with you in mind. I want to go to church with you. Your philosophical orthodoxy, in my opinion, is too rigid because it does not seem to allow for a transcendent God to find a way to express His goodness to man, or for man to express to Him, his desire for the eternal and transcendent God. This desire is in the bosom of man. Nothing else can perfectly satisfy. As Augustine says, "Our hearts are restless..." Informed Catholics should believe that Somebody put this desire in us not out of malice to make us miserable, but because it is attainable. When you say the transcendent God cannot or will not hear our prayers, it seems to me that you place unreasonable limits on what the transcendent God wishes for us, and can do for us. No creature in a good creation can desire what is unattainable. I have really liked (loved, I should confess) one of our cats over the years. But the most she seemed to want was to stretch her paws (hands) out on my chest while I was in the recliner. Her wishes were attainable. And here is the thing in Catholicism. We believe that those who are sons of God, not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, are indeed gods, or perhaps I should make that "gods in the making", partaking of His transcendent nature. And thus to those who are becoming gods, the transcendent God becomes immanent and intimate, God with us, revealing to us His heart through His Son and by His Spirit. Our most sublime desires are possible. Be nice to me now. God bless. Rory
  12. Fether is asking why, from his perspective, other Christians put a strong emphasis on their preferred form of the Trinity. It seems like a reasonable question. If as all Protestants agree, the Catholic Church is false, on what authority do they require LDS to loosely follow a Creed formulated by over 300 Catholic bishops one thousand-seven hundred years ago? Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking from the Catholic Church. They still do not seem to realize that this means more than disdaining a sacerdotal priesthood. Everything is open for reevaluation. This includes the Trinity of the Council of Nicea which is not clear from the Bible alone. Of course it is compatible with Bible. But so what? So are the positions LDS usually take. Protestants cannot legitimately appeal to Catholic Tradition, and that is the problem when they insist that LDS are in the wrong about "the Trinity".
  13. I believe differently now about what happens when one is born again. To be born again means that one's first birth as a child of Adam is inadequate. a second birth is required which restores the soul to friendship with God with the infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity. When Adam fell, his spiritual union with God was truly lost. He experienced spiritual death. His children are born in the same sad condition. On this much, most Protestants and Catholics are agreed. Luther spoke of regeneration as God graciously covering up our sins with the blood of Christ, (the dunghill covered with snow allusion). Catholics think this is a cramped and unappreciative view of God's work in us. The Catholic Church teaches that if Adam fell through sin, that the regeneration by Christ does more than merely cover up a creature that remains offensive. Redemption is more than a mere judicial pardon. Adam became truly unrighteous before God. Redemption through the second Adam and second birth reverses this completely. It brings life and true righteousness back to the soul. It gives eternal life, the life that Adam had in God before his fall. It permits God to be intimate with us again because He communicates His own life to us. It is a stupendous truth. By partaking of the divine nature, we can have union with God again: "As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Pet. 1:3-4) One writer explains very beautifully I think, the precious opportunity that is given in this life to those who have been born again: "Even while living in the flesh, they bear evidence of their heavenly origin, by going on from virtue unto virtue. Though sojourning in this vale of tears, they are ever on the assent, approaching gradually nigher to the high summits of holiness; they reflect in their lives the perfection of their heavenly Father, who surrounded as He thus is in Sion by this noble family, is seen to be, in all truth, the God of gods." ---Ps. 83:8 (it is Psalm 82 or 84 in Protestant Bibles) ---The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, Vol. 11, p. 330, St Bonaventure Publications (2000) I want to say that I do not feel like I am always "ever on the assent". I feel the weight of my flesh, but I also feel the pull of the Spirit. If I reflect the perfection of my heavenly Father, it is undoubtedly a dim reflection. We are taught that without Christ we can do nothing. Every time I say through the day "Jesus, Saviour, have mercy", it is because I am acted upon by our gracious God to ask it. It makes me hope that I am still climbing and not falling. Any act pleasing to God is only by God's grace. The act may be truly small. But I am small. And the grace is great. I am pretty sure that if we are making progress, God finds a way to keep us from recognizing it too clearly. We are all prone to have pride and becoming complacent. It is okay with me if I seem to be the least worthy of God's servants so much of the time. I know I do not deserve what my good God wants to give to me. That gives me hope too. It is better to fall and get up knowing one's unworthiness, than to never fall and begin to forget one's unworthiness. Of course, the saints retain through wisdom the knowledge of their unworthiness, while doing great things with God's grace, taking no credit for it. We can lose the great promises that God gives us in our second birth through willful acts of faithlessness. Like Adam at his fall, those who are born again may foolishly throw away the treasure that God has given them through baptism. Such souls will always have been born again, and that cannot be repeated. In contrast to those who eventually see Jesus face to face, to know God as he is, and who are happy, those are "unhappy born agains" who reject God's great and precious promises. St. Paul wisely set the example in explaining his fear of becoming a "castaway" (KJV). I think the Douay says "reprobate". Either way, I can not assume that I will be among them, but I hope to always remain a happy born again. Rory
  14. Hey phil...that question shows a lot of insight. I have thought about it the same way. Yes, I think I remain fundamentalist, according to a definition that understands the history. Now, fundamentalism for many people merely means someone who is hateful about anyone not of his religion. This narrow view of fundamentalism is unfortunate. By accepting the label of fundamentalist, I mean that there were traits in the teachings and folkways I accepted from my Baptist days, that were also quite Catholic. I would further suggest that fundamentalism as a Protestant phenomenon was preceded by Catholic fundamentalism by about 1800 years. This is what leads me to observe sometimes that many who think they are anti-Catholic fundamentalists might be "more Catholic" than they realize. Probably more Catholic than some of our own bishops and popes have been over the last many years! In the late 19th Century Pope Leo XIII, and in the early 20th, Pope St. Pius X were opposing in Rome, the same ideas, that were changing the faith of Protestants. Catholics, including priests and some prelates, began questioning long held norms regarding birth control, biblical infallibility, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and ecumenism. One cannot help but see the parallels. Rory
×
×
  • Create New...