Jump to content

3DOP

Contributor
  • Posts

    3,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 3DOP

  1. Good man. I did forget, but with help, I remember. I was a West Coast Giants guy. McCovey, Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart, and Willie of course. Marichal and G. Perry. Great teams. But power couldn't beat Koufax, Drysdale, and Osteen. 2 to 1. 1 to nothing. The stinking Dodgers, however terrible their offense, beat our guys.
  2. Johnny Callison! Left handed hitter, throwing right handed? Like Carl Yastrzemski? I had his '64 baseball card. I am trying to think without cheating who else they had. Jim Bunning and Chris Short for a pretty great lefty righty duo every four days. Its a little early for Richie Allen...Okay, I am going over to my '68 Baseball Encyclopedia. The Classic. Bobby Wine...one of those great fielding/no hit shortstops of the era. Like Hal Lanier, Dal Maxvill, Eddie Brinkman. Who was the Oriole...Tip of tongue...Mark Belanger! Richie Allen WAS there with 29 homers, second only to Callison's 31. I had Wine's card and Clay Dalrymple (Catcher)...one of those guys that you end up with four or five cards while you are trying to get Willie Mays (who I had). Wow. Mark Belanger wasn't there yet though. The O's had Luis Aparicio(!) and a lot of their lineup that was waiting for Frank Robinson. I loved pre-Vatican II Baseball. Its all Novus Ordo today. They need a Council to get back to Tradition!
  3. I would be interested in your article for the Digest. Was it Archbishop Chaput, when he was in Philadelphia? When I met my wife of 40 years, long ago at Hyles-Anderson, she pronounced Philadelphia this way as i remember: Fulldulfia. It was very charming. I almost blew it though by joking that I was a New York Islanders fan. That did not score me any goals. She was a teenager and fan for the Bobby Clarke Flyers that won the Stanley Cup in the 70's. At twenty, she remained aggressively partisan. Its been a while, but I would never blaspheme again by pretending to like Bobby's opponents. Heh.
  4. Hi Navidad. Faithful Catholics must be conservative AND progressive. The First Vatican Council is a warning for any Catholic who gives slight regard to tradition OR progress in matters of faith. 1) New insights must be compatible with old truths. "...that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding." 2) The mysteries of the faith are inexhaustible and new insights are inevitable. "...let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding. ---Both quotes are from Session Three, ch. 4, para. 14 of the First Vatican Council, April 24, 1870 An example of recession from the meaning which Holy Mother Church has once declared would be to deny the permissibility of the death penalty when it has been sanctioned for the entire history of the Church until now. I don't care very much if the nations decide to never impose the death penalty. I care very much that what the Church teaches is compatible with her 2,000 year history. An example of progress would be the definition of papal infallibility which did not come about until just 150 years ago, over 18 centuries after Pentecost. I do not know, but it would not be troubling at all to discover that St. Peter himself did not fully grasp the prerogatives that belonged to the bishop of Rome. I deny that every truth of the Catholic faith came forth from the Apostles fully developed. It is my hunch that the next doctrine to be developed will be in regards to the ecumenical council. What teachings of a council are to be considered infallible? Under what conditions might a faithful Catholic question the teachings of an ecumenical council? For the record, I am not one who insists that the Second Vatican Council Vatican has erroneous teachings in it. We need to be satisfied to interpret that Council in the light of Tradition. I believe this is what Pope Benedict XVI meant in speaking of an hermeneutic of continuity. If we cannot eventually discover that continuity, it will be time for the Church herself to declare definitively the necessary conditions for the teachings of an ecumenical council to be infallible. The following highlights what is disturbing the Church more than every today: "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy — the form in which the liturgy was handed down — suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith — for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. — nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith. All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith." ---Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), address to the bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988
  5. Navidad, hi. I used your name and your conversation with Miserere as an opportunity to express why I would be forthcoming with anyone here who had any interest in where I go to Mass, including you. But for most or alI folks here, it would be uninteresting. I did not mean my post to be a dig at you. Regards, Rory
  6. Navidad said to MiserereNobis...you don't tell us much about your beliefs. In that sense you are cloaking them....no quotes. Paraphrase. Not speaking for anybody but me...I am delighted if there were interest in my beliefs. I love to explain my beliefs and practices to anyone interested. But this being an LDS board, I refrain. At least I try to refrain. Who here has an interest in Vatican 2, or Archbishop Bugnini and his new Mass, or that Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI called it a banal, on the spot product? Who that is LDS or Mennonite (!) could care about or understand that? I am here because the LDS present a plausible case for a one true church....if there was a great apostasy as non-Catholic Christianity implies. It would be absurd to argue with LDS or Protestants about ecumenical councils or liturgy. How could they have an opinion? "Cloaking" isn't malicious. It is recognizing lack of interest. If anyone here wants to discuss Vatican 2, the liturgy, ecumenism, religious liberty, modernism, or anything else that has led me to where I am, all anyone needs to do is ask. Cloaked with no dagger, and in good will towards all here, trying to present the best option, if we do not need to believe that early Christianity was apostate, 3DOP PS: Calm, you are so good to me. I edited since you gave your support (again). It was for the purpose of emphasizing that the only question between us is the apostasy. Yes or no. I will not attempt to solve that question in this postscript. PPS: Robert F. Smith, is he okay? He seems to have absented himself lately.
  7. I have heard people here say that we are the same "species" as God the Father. If this is granted, since we are human, how could God not also be human? Elevated humanity? Sure. Deified humanity? Sure. If I were LDS, I think I would admit to being currently undeified and unelevated. But I would not grant that my essential humanity is different from the Father. (Here we are using those words you guys hate when we start talking Trinity!). I thought the Father Himself is not finished being elevated in his humanity, in LDS thought, and neither are we. I regret to resist correction from one who believes, But I just can't see how we can be the same species and the Father is no longer human. Catholics hold that Christ became human and always will be from now on. His humanity is also glorified to a state where it is so wonderful that it seems to be beyond human. But the marvel is that we are not the model of "true" humanity. He is! That is our blessed hope. That is why we rejoice that His Sacred Humanity resides at the right hand of God the Father. God's humanity (the Son) is destined to be the norm in the Catholic faith. It seems like the Father and the Son would provide the model of "true" humanity for LDS? Humbly submitted... 3
  8. Blue Dreams wrote: "I decided a long time ago that I don't believe in a purely evil person." Emphatic yes! I reject "total depravity" (John Calvin) too. The "nature" of evil is literally nothing. The absence of good health is an evil, but it is not something. Evil merely observes a good that is absent. The same may be said in the moral realm. Without goodness, there is no such thing as evil. It makes me happy to understand that evil cannot "exist" except as a lack of the good. I will go further than Blue Dreams, I do not believe in a purely evil thing. "And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good." ---Gen. 1:31
  9. Saint B... May we then as David suggests above, assume that you "ground all subordination of the Son of God—to God the Father—to His human nature"? (LDS do not acknowledge that distinction. For them, God the Father is human too.) I will let the LDS answer more authoritatively as to why the Son is subordinate. I conjecture that it is mainly because of the relationship of sons to fathers, not any kind of ontological differences. They cannot, like us, refer it to the human nature of Christ, since that is also the Father's "nature". (They don't approve of our ideas about nature, substance, or essence. But they DO use the word "species", as in "after their kind" in Genesis. Of course I will be corrected by them if I misunderstand.) I am thinking that as with the LDS, the Catholic view that Christ is subordinate in the New Testament, should suggest nothing to do with inferiority of nature, and is based on a truly recent event (the Incarnation) when compared to eternity. Rather, we should agree with the LDS (and the Catholic theologians David cited) that subordination is based on relationship, an hierarchy that begins in the eternal Godhead, and flows into creation, without implying any inequality of nature. "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named..." ---Eph. 2:14, 15 Thanks, Rory
  10. Yes... I believe it because I think this is what the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. But my reply does not mean I know why the Holy Catholic Church teaches this. I am re-reading Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange's Our Saviour and His Love for us. In this work he gives serious consideration to the possibility of divine union to souls not visibly attached to the true church. Maybe these wise men were filled with the love of God outside the ordinary pathways of the time?
  11. Hi InCognitus. Allow me to retract where I said that St. Clement "argues that the Apostles had no intention of "ordaining" Apostles." I now think you are correct that in the passage under scrutiny, "these who shall fall asleep", is concerning the office of bishop (at Corinth), not the apostles, as I had thought. I did not mean to say that Clement was personally arguing the Apostles had no such intentions. But the context of his letter, in the late 1st Century, with only St. John still alive, suggests (rather than argues), that there is no need for alarm about the dwindling number of Apostles. Do you think Clement, a fellow labourer of St. Paul, had been taught that the office of Apostle was perpetual? It certainly does not seem like he or St. Ignatius of Antioch, our next Father chronologically, had the concerns that should have dominated their thinking if they believed living Apostles were necessary to the life of the Church. Ignatius was so old that there is a legend that he was one of the children who our Lord defended when some were complaining about all the children hanging around. Surely, he would have been instructed properly in the Church of the Former-day Saints? I am not familiar with any credible source from the early church that expresses concern because the Apostles are no longer around. Your interpretation of the Scriptures that I talked about is as plausible as mine. So how do we break the stalemate? Based on the Tradition of the Church which gave us the same Scriptures, I believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about them. I would look to the LDS to give any interpretations of the Book of Mormon. But I can not think that the LDS interpretation of the Scriptures that the Catholic Church preserved, is the only plausible interpretation. If I am not mistaken, LDS even believe that some writings and teachings in these Scriptures may have been removed or corrupted. Why would the Catholic Church preserve Scriptures that prove her to be apostate? She teaches that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. It does not make sense from a Catholic or LDS point of view that the Catholic Church would save documents that teach that the office of Apostle needs to be perpetual, and then declare them to be inspired Scripture. One of the reasons that the Catholic Church grew so steadily is that the harsher the persecutions endured the more admirable did it seem to the non-Christians as they observed these souls who calmly refused to renounce their faith in the face of torture and death. I admire them too, and like the converts that replaced the early martyrs, I wish also to be a part of their company. Years ago, when I highlighted those passages from the first three volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, it was for the precise purpose of discovering what these who were faithful unto the spilling of their own blood believed. I had already wanted their fellowship before I fully appreciated their Catholic Church, which in Her ancient Canon of the Holy Mass, has the priest briefly break his silence to make an invocation for himself and for us in audible tone: "Nobis quoque peccatoribus." "To us sinners also, (and then silently again) Thy servants, hoping in the multitude of Thy mercies vouch safe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy Apostles and Martyrs..." I still want to believe as these did and I see no indication that the Church to which they belonged was deficient because it lacked Apostles. Regards, Rory
  12. I analyze minutiae. I am always thinking about efficiency of movement. I plan my steps across the shop to accomplish as much as I can with least effort. I think of ways to not wear things out like my car breaks, my shoes, windshield wipers, clothes, all doors, especially expensive garage doors (there are a limited number of up and downs, right?). I hate it when my dear wife washes some clothes that need to be thrown away. No. We are not throwing away clothes that have just have been washed and dried. Threadbare as they may be, they will be worn once more, and disposed of dirty! My sister-in-law, autistic, and therefore excusable makes me as crazy as she is with the way she thoroughly cleans things before throwing them in the garbage. I can explain why it is always easier and more efficient to back in to a parking spot, than it is to back out. I believe there is a right way to do everything and that most of the time, I am the only person who cares about it. I think I have learned to care less. I have had to stop thinking that others are necessarily stupid because of the way they don't think about how they should park, or merge on to the interstate. Why do people making a left hand turn stay so far back from where they need to make the turn? Get up to where you are going to turn! You need less time that way, and I can probably make it behind you too! This contributes to traffic congestion and eventually road rage. How can you not see this? Square it off. As you can see, I am trying to "evangelize" about something that does not warrant it. I need to let others do things "the wrong way" without thinking about it much. I mostly successfully hide my disapproval of wasteful habits, and manage to like people even though they are not like me. I hope I am not in denial. I truly think that I hide my obsessions pretty well. Heh. Still, I can be proud to see when one of my boys backs into his parking spot. Better yet if I have transmitted the faith to my children.
  13. "The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Christ, was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God's will...and they [the apostles] appointed their first converts...to be bishops and deacons of the future believers.... Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop. For this cause, therefore, since they had received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have been already mentioned and afterward added the provision that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." The above is the quote from St. Clement that St. B gave us. It argues that the Apostles had no intention of "ordaining" Apostles. They ordained bishops because in that office alone is the fullness of Holy Orders. When a replacement Apostle for the fallen away Judas was sought, we can see why the Apostles would not give any thought to replacing themselves with any further Apostles. Notice the qualification that was required: "Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection." ---Acts 1:21, 22 These were those who St. Paul describes as "the great apostles". (2 Cor. 11:5) St. Paul is an apostle to the gentiles, but not one of those. There are others who were apostles in the sense that they were sent on a mission, similarly to the "Apostle of the East", St. Francis Xavier. But none of these could be numbered among "the great apostles", who were twelve and who were succeeded by bishops who could not qualify to be numbered among those who were in company with our Lord on the earth as reliable eye witnesses of what took place between John's baptism until the Lord's glorious Ascension. This would be why as the "great apostles" passed off of the scene, it would have been eventually impossible to find candidates to replace them with as "a witness with us of his resurrection".
  14. Hi InCognitus, I am providing the quote you gave from Eusebius since it doesn't carry over from your post. "In addition to these things the same man [Hegesippus], while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the 'knowledge which is falsely so-called.'" ----------------------------------------- When I looked this up just now, I was surprised to see that it was highlighted already in orange, which was the code I used to indicate a passage that might point one toward the teaching of the Latter-day Saints. However, I think you would have to agree that the purpose of Eusebius' quote of Hegesippus was only intended as one of hundreds of illustrations in history to show how fiercely God's enemies tried to destroy Christ's Church before She could convert a pagan empire. He states two of his three purposes in the writing of this history at the very beginning: "It is my purpose to write an account of the lines of succession of the holy apostles, as well as of the times that have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events that are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and number and dates of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves mercilessly devastated the flock of Christ." --- The Church History of Eusebius, 1:1:1 and 2 Eusebius sees the conflict that he is about to describe as a glorious triumph for the Church of which the bishop of Rome is preeminent. Eusebius discusses St. Irenaeus' catalogue of all of the bishops of Rome up to his own time. Why would Irenaeus, a bishop in far away Gaul, try to prove the Apostolic pedigree in one particular Church? Here is what Eusebius apparently believes about it: "In the same order and succession the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the Apostles unto us." ---ibid. 5:6:5 The five volume work of Irenaeus is entitled "Against Heresies"! It would be foolish to deny that heresy followed the post-Apostolic Church, as it had when the Apostles lived. Heresies serve a purpose in God's providence over the Church of which Christ is the Head. Without Luther, there is no Council of Trent. Without Novatian, there is no Council of Ephesus. Without Arius, there is no Council of Nicea. Doctrine is refined and deepened by its contact with new ideas that are incompatible with what has been handed down from the Apostolic deposit. Heresy isn't stupid. It's new. It is like this Synod on Synodality that is ravaging the Church today with its new theories on how the true Church has always opposed female ordination, but it is okay to consider it after a 2,000 year history of not being able to recognize what Christ's Gospel teaches about the subject. The Catholic does not so much oppose women's ordination as he opposes anything which doesn't come from Catholic Tradition. St. Paul affirms to the Corinthians that there is a reason to understand why heresy will never be vanquished and establishes a principle that will ever follow the Church. The presence of souls with "itching ears" following after heresies does not destroy, but rather purifies the Church: "I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you." ---I Cor. 11:18, 19 3DOP PS: I have to make a qualification. I should have said that heresy is not "necessarily stupid". Historically, I think my theory holds up pretty well until recently. But I am questioning my theory these days about "the successful error" which I have touted here through the years, as a way of reducing the claims that this or that widely believed error can be absurd or ridiculous.
  15. Calm...hey. Paul won't mind being stalked/remembered. He looks so young. I know he will be happy to hear from us forgetfulfolk!
  16. Hey Dave, I enjoyed re-reading what you, myself, and others had to say about the Apostasy over twenty years ago. Thanks for digging that stuff up. I thought you might have it! I miss our old friend paul hadik. And of course Dr. DCP. I hope all is well for them and everyone from those days. InCog. You were there too! One of those Kevins, if I had to guess. Anyway, I had promised a substantive reply to your biblical arguments in favor of my faith. I have nothing new. I now know that I have only repeated myself here at this forum though the years, and forget that I said it a long time ago already, and could not say it more clearly today. I have not moved an inch. That is not an argument in my favor. Anyway, take a peek at our old discussions, and see if you have changed, or have developed your beliefs further. I do not think I have. I think you might find my reply to your recent post here, over there at ZLMB. God bless you, my old anonymous friend. Rory
  17. Hey Ken. As I recall, there was an online discussion board where, after I had read Mr. Bickmore's book there was some spirited discussion with the author himself! This would have preceded the legendary ZLMB, which was begun in Sept. 2000. I am pretty sure that our own Calm was at this site. I wish I could remember the name and find our old posts. Rory
  18. InCog, that was a very well presented argument. I hope to offer a rebuttal in the next few days that point to one ecclesiastical organization to which neither the Scriptures, nor the history you cited necessarily apply. In the meantime I applaud your credible consideration of the situation in the early church. Rory
  19. Calm, hi. My mom always heated our syrup on the stove. I was surprised as a youngster when I learned that there are people out there who scandalously abuse their breakfasts with cold syrup!
  20. Hey Papa. My Catholic prayers for you. Hail Mary and all that. I am losing it too. I am MRI boy, and the "Can't remember anybody's name any more boy too". Clumsy, and forgetting why I went downstairs or came upstairs? I relate Papa. Should we wish we died first? No! No. That IS one way to never experience mental or physical deficiency. But our loved ones and God doesn't mind that we have bad memories and bad backs. They love us all the same. If we can recognize that God and our loved ones behold us as tenderly as ever even as we grow more feeble, we should be happy to know that our acceptance of ourselves in this way makes them happy. Let us think of them before ourselves. God bless you Bill.
  21. Okay. It looks like we are agreed about eternal subordination. Going once, twice? Sold? I am interested in any demurrer. But time for my own Friendly Friday Question. I have never heard of Meinhold or Prof. Albright, who seem to be in agreement with Hugh Nibley as per Dave's quote at the bottom of his post. Worst of all, the Book of Mormon bears such alarming resemblance to scripture that, for Meinhold, it not only undermines but threatens in a spirit of "nihilistic skepticism" to discredit the Bible altogether. Since one can reject the Book of Mormon without in any way jeopardizing one's faith in the Bible, and since no one ever can accept or ever has accepted the Book of Mormon without complete and unreserved belief in the Bible, the theory that the Book of Mormon is a fiendish attempt to undermine faith in the Bible is an argument of sheer desperation. Recently Professor Albright has noted that the Bible is first and last a historical document, and that of all the religions of the world, only Judaeo-Christianity can be said to have a completely "historical orientation." - Hugh Nibley A few of you know that Dave and I are longtime friends. But this is not collusion, nor was my last post. We do not throw each other softballs. And we disagree on things. (One of those things is about whether Dave should be Catholic! I have decided to let him make that decision. Heh.) Of course Dave would be the main person to answer this question, but presumably, all LDS here would be familiar with Nibley, and others perhaps with the formerly mentioned. So I myself am unenlightened about the household names other than Nibley, and what is being proposed about the Bible and the Book of Mormon. All answers are appreciated.
  22. Dave. Hi. "Whatever I may do, is in me from the Father". (#747 above) I am not sure I am getting the full meaning here. Does the Son "see" the Father doing everything that the Son does? Not separately I think. Maybe it is that the Son "sees/perceives/understands" the will of the Father and the Father's will is the cause (or doing) of action through the Son? Would that be close to the sense in which you understand Aquinas to be saying that the Son does only what he sees the Father doing? We cannot separate the activity of the Son from the activity of the Father. They are indivisible. Those "doings" which are unreceived in the Father, can only be received in the Son? It would seem that the view of Aquinas could not allow for the Son at any time to advance to a position where He "does things" separately from the Father or after a different manner. I do not think that Aquinas definitively states that the Son is eternally submissive to the Father, nor do I know where the Catholic Church has defined it. But it seems like the truths of the Catholic faith imply eternal subordination, as a legitimate doctrinal development. If it is true, this would be an illustration of the theological progress the Church should make according to the prayer of the First Vatican Council in Session 3, ch.4: "May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."
  23. Hi InCog. How widely held is the view I express (eternal subordination of the Son to the Father)? I would think that billions of Catholics in the world today have never thought about it. Of those who have, I could not know any percentages. As far as I can tell, this is not a question that has been decided by "creedal Christianity". After reflection, I do not think either side of those Catholics who have beliefs about it, would be wise to accuse the other of error, until and unless the Church should speak definitively. So anyway, I am only saying what I think a Catholic should best believe. Is there an LDS position?
×
×
  • Create New...