Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 3DOP

  1. I have regretted the post you quote. Especially for fether. I think fether merely wanted the best biblical citations without questioning the concept. I responded as though he/she was in favor of doing bad if it mitigates worse bad. Bad assumption.
  2. Who needs Christ or religion to teach that? This isn't a religious question. Do we eradicate anything with the thing being eradicated? Does baseball eradicate baseball? However, the Christian religion does accept what reason demands, as your co-religionists have demonstrated.
  3. So I remember where I was, playing catch with a neighbor, in the front yard, sunny, but still dew on the grass on an early morning in early June. School had just ended for the year. I wasn't quite twelve years old and Mom came out and told us that somebody had killed Bobby Kennedy. What about JFK, Neil Armstrong, the Challenger disaster, Elvis' death, 9/11? Maybe a piece of music (Tommy James and the Shondells gives me more than one!) that you hadn't listened to so well until...when? Crimson and Clover on the JV field 10th grade. Crystal Blue Persuasion hauling cars near Walla Walla. The opening theme for Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing on I-5 South, seeming like I am empty, heading home, but still in traffic, seeing those guys through the music riding back to Messina in triumph. Perhaps those Eli Manning passes that ruined the Patriots perfect season with a crazy catch on top of a helmet? What do you remember vividly, picturing it forever associated with a place and time?
  4. Hits? As big as Ramblin' Man? I don't think so. Maybe some FM. Jerry did a solo album. I liked the sound of Sugaree. "Shake it, shake it Sugaree. There is just one thing I ask of you..." But I can't remember what it is! Wait...(Stream of consciousness time) "Please forget you knew my name, my darling Sugaree." Why would there be a request to be forgetful of the author's name? I needed to listen closer maybe. (Commentary Miserere?) I haven't paid much attention to words. They could have said anything. Kind of like GK Chesterton or CS Lewis. One fears it is more about sound than idea. I am pretty sure I agree with Chesterton and maybe even Lewis some...but is hard to say because they sound so good. I have doubts about whether I agree with the Dead, but I like how they sound.
  5. The thing about the Grateful Dead...is they never got much air-play. No hits really. They are jazz, country, rock fusion that religious people avoid, and I understand, because of what they named themselves. I don't like skulls on my beer bottles or album covers. I don't like their name, or their logos, but the music seems pretty good to me.
  6. Webbles, hi....You are doing okay with the terminology. Thanks for the good question. I will leave it to my brethren for now, except to say that yes, Christ's consubstantiality with man is "somehow separate from His oneness with the Father and/or God" according to Catholic thought. Mark will jump all over me for this. But it is where we might say that transcendence and immanence meet. Even if LDS cannot think it were true, you could give us credit for lofty aspirations!
  7. I know this was for Miserere. But here goes again. I probably haven't tried this here since I moved to Kansas over three years ago. You guys are the same species as God, according to your doctrine. You are "AFTER HIS KIND"...meaning your Father in heaven. According to the way we use the word, you are "consubstantial" with God the Father. The Council of Chalcedon says that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, as God. In the end It isn't that weird or spooky. It merely means that whatever kind of thing begot you, that is what you are. So we Catholics think God is of a higher nature than us and Jesus His Son is "consubstantial" with His Father, without claiming to have exhaustive knowledge of everything about God. And we Catholics also think, according to the way Chalcedon used the word, that Jesus is of a lower nature, if you will, being born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being consubstantial with us. Really, it is only what is observed in every instance of biological reproduction...Anyway...that is the only way I understand the way the Church used the word at Chalcedon. And who could argue with it? Well...I know you will object somehow. That's okay. God love us. In a few weeks we Catholics will celebrate the Feast of the Ascenscion, when our Lord and our God ascended to Heaven in His human nature, opening wide the gates of heaven to His beloved brothers and sisters here below. I have heard your objection many times here. Consubstantial doesn't tell us anything about the "nature" of a man or God. Nor does it unlock the mysteries of the sparrow! It is just a way of trying to communicate without exhausting every mystery. In theology, it only means that a Son of Man is from man and a Son of God is from God. Not that deep. But yeah. I agree with your objection about the lack of info. Along with the halibuts and horses we are all a lot of mysteries that make for a wonderful, mysterious world. But what would you have? A Jesus who is man that is a man that is NOT consubstantial with the rest of humanity. No. None of us would support that! Would we? Nor is it supportable that according to the way Catholics use the word, and it IS our word, none of us, not LDS, nor Protestant, nor Catholic, should deny that Jesus is consubstantial with His Father in heaven. If you know that Plotinus used that word first, that's fine. Do we need to explore the etymology of every word to know if the concept presented represents something that can be shared? I suspect there are words that all of us accept that find their origins elsewhere than we might like, if we were committed to an idea that words have to come from certain sources and not others to have any worth. Anyway, the first chapters of Genesis! Moses predates Plotinus. Moses is completely compatible with any idea Plotinus had of having the same essence, substance, or nature...which is to say. consubstantial. Okay...the work week looms. Got to run. May you and I live long enough to be both retired and have our wits to be arguing at the same time! My wife turns 65 on May 19, 2025. That is the date I am done. (Medicare and health insurance you know). It seems coming faster and faster... God bless you Mark. Rory
  8. Sure Mark. The 66 Books are the limited canon that Protestants, LDS, and Catholics accept. 39 Old Testament plus 27 New Testament. I was saying that those 66 are inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. Latter-day revelation might resolve some controversies as might the larger Catholic canon, but I doubt it. Catholics have 73 books. It seems like your "Quad" is thick. More words, but fewer "books"? Scripture is authoritative, inspired, written literature. Catholics and LDS claim some that Protestants don't. Bible? I don't think I used that word. If I did, I retract it. I thought I learned once that literally, "Bible" means books...more than one. I could have "learned" that wrongly. For most Christians, I think it means canon of Scripture. But I don't even know what I think it means at all times to everybody! Heh. Latter-day Revelation...that would be LDS specific. Not trying to pull a fast one on you with Lourdes or Fatima! Your full and complete canon to this point. I hope that helps. Rory
  9. rod, that is what we say. It has been "such and such time since my last confession". Taking your story at face value, those boys didn't have the faith. Neither did the priest. There is no sin that would cause a faithful priest to shout so that anyone else could hear. Or maybe he knew the youth was lying? Still, he shoudn't have shouted. The priest is an alter Christus. Our poor Catholic youth. They were speaking to Jesus. What terrible times for the Church. I am truly sorry for your experience of unfaithful Catholic observance. Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison. I would be frightened beyond words to make such mock of Christ's mercy that your frivolous school chums took so lightly. True horror.
  10. OC...hey. I think you will agree. "Go and sin no more" is on the mind also as we APPROACH confession. The faithful fear to sin presumptively, as though the grace will automatically be available for a good confession. I don't believe in that without a through conversion. If one sins gravely on purpose, with the idea that they think they will have the grace to make a good confession, with the necessary dispositions to earnestly try to discontinue a bad habit or renounce a single sin that separates the soul from God? No. The priests to whom I confess say often, before giving absolution, "Thank God now for the grace of a good confession." It isn't the Catholic or I think, Orthodox faith, that could have much hope for a soul that deliberately sins, thinking that some mechanical sacrament will restore union with God. That cannot be an act of faith, or hope, or charity. It would be a terrible sacrilege and misunderstanding of the Sacrament. It is easy to ape the words, but without grace, the dispositions cannot be presumed.
  11. I would affirm what you attribute to Miserere Nobis. As I have said many, many times over the years here: "The Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy." That is another way of saying that "the Catholic Trinity is NOT explained in the Bible but was derived externally." From Scripture alone, I affirm the plausibility of LDS teaching on the Godhead. For resolution, we need to go externally from the 66 books of the Scriptural canon that both LDS and Catholics accept. You are the ones who say we need Latter-day and continuing revelation. Sure. The 66 Books don't do the trick! Anyway, we are agreed that the 66 books are not enough, longview. You look to Latter=day Revelation. Catholics look to Apostolic Tradition. This is another reason I hang around here. We have so many strange ways of agreeing! ---- For Navidad. Forgive me, this was a short and easy post. I am still summoning up the energy to repost what I wrote last week about one baptism for you. Maybe next Saturday. Still heartbroken (not really...it can't be that important), Your friend in Christ, and longview's, 3DOP
  12. You watch telnetd. Miserere will make the distinction between royal and sacerdotal priesthood. All are called to make sacrifice, men and women. All Christians are called to act as priests...sacrificing, making intercession. But few men and no women are called to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
  13. Ouch...I should have saved before attempting to post. My server was disconnected and I lost my post. I do not think I have the heart, even if I had the time to do it all again right now. It was tight with no typos. After I recover (heh) and also have some extra time, I will not purposely fail to revisit this thread. At the latest, I have two weeks vacation after the first week of May. SIGH. Not the first time, and probably not the last. I need to take myself less seriously anyway. 😬 Allow me to wish you Phil, our LDS friends who may be following, and all of our non-Catholic friends who celebrate the glorious Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ tomorrow great joy. May all of our Easters be very blessed. Rory
  14. continued from above... Hi again Navidad, It has occurred to me to say that I know I am not personally infallible. Perhaps I am blind and deceived about what I have believed is true in religion. The Catholic Church, according to Her own teaching, can never be "a part of the world-wide church today". The Catholic Church claims to be the whole. Let me repeat the question you asked of me above: "So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today?" I believe everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches. If it can be demonstrated that the Catholic Church holds that She is merely "a part of the world-wide church today," I would be astonished, flabbergasted, etc. and I would be forced to re-evaluate my conversion in 1995. Until that improbability happens, the answer to your question, however, is in the affirmative, that I reject that idea as being incompatible with Catholic teaching. Please bear with me as I try to briefly make it clearer why the branch theory is difficult from a Catholic point of view. Navidad Or is it the concept of it being a "branch" that is the sticking point? 3DOP That seems like the same question to me. Correct me though if I a missing something important. Navidad Since the very early 1500s the Anabaptist movement as exemplified today in the Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren groups has rejected a view of itself as being a "branch" of the reformation. It has a much stronger sense of self as an early restorationist group. 3DOP The Catholic Church was already 1500 years old in the early 1500's according to what the Catholic Church teaches about when Christ founded the Church. Historically, I grant that the Anabaptist movement preceded the so-called reformations of Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, and Zwingli. I can appreciate why one from the Anabaptist tradition would not be able to accept themselves as a "branch" of the reformation when it has its own separate roots. In a similar way, the Catholic Church would be denying Her own roots, founded upon the Apostles of Christ Himself, if She were, after 1500 years, to accept as fellow branches, Christian bodies, founded so late as the Renaissance, that separated themselves from any plausible claim to apostolic origin. You claim that these groups are restorationist in nature. Do they truly reject as false and fallen away, the Catholic Church, with all of its audacious claims to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with a true restoration of the same? It has seemed to me that the historic emphasis of all the groups that have roots in the 16th Century is to deny the existence of any Christian institution that carries the four marks of the Catholic Church. The reason I limit the expression of restorationist to the LDS and perhaps a couple of others that emerged later, in the 19th Century, would be because they would not ignore the biggest problem of apostolic roots. Who that was sent from God authorized any of the men who founded these reformed churches to say that the mark of apostolicity could be dispensed with. It is an unattractive and uninspiring doctrine which teaches that Christ who founded His Church on a Rock, would after 1500 years, rouse up people in far away Renaissance Europe to rise up against this claim of a rock foundation, and any alleged need for apostolicity. Restorationist groups necessarily go further than mere reformation. A restorationist group today would not say that God wants us to wade through all the claims of all the churches that deny that they have apostolic origin in trying to decide which one God actually started. It would be hard to decide on the basis of the massive available data, which among the non-Catholic, non-Restorationist churches are the truest among others. Nor do Restorationists tell us that it is equally well if we attach ourselves to whatever Christian body suits our particular temperament and personality. A true Restoration would necessarily involve the reactivation of apostolic authority. This is what is so much more appealing about LDS claims against the Catholic Church, if I may put it that way. In less aggressive ways than in the past, LDS do not hesitate to say that for some reason, that the Catholic Church is fallen away. This seems much more plausible to me than to believe that today, God wants me to be a member of a Catholic Church that recognizes itself as another branch of a world-wide church. This is why I have a continuing interest in LDS claims. In this one very important respect, LDS are quite Catholic! Navidad, in wrapping up for now, I am hoping you can begin to grasp the height of the historical hurdles presented in suggesting that such a venerable (ancient) institution as the Catholic Church, could ever somehow view itself as merely a branch of something so very recent. No offense intended at all, but it couldn't work as an historical model. Perhaps these thoughts can also shed some light on why the Latter-day Saint might appreciate the same predicament. Take care, Rory
  15. Navidad So would you also reject the idea that the Catholic Church is part of the world-wide church today? 3DOP When a Catholic refers to the "Catholic Church", he already means the "world-wide Church". Your question seems to me to ask if the Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church! I understand that is not what you meant to ask. But the Catholic Church is the whole, not a part. I am sure you know, but some readers might not, that the word "catholic" means universal: "The word catholic comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου katholou 'on the whole, according to the whole, in general', and is a combination of the Greek words κατά 'about' and ὅλος 'whole'. The first use of "Catholic" was by the church father Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans." ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term) There is a very important sense in which the Church retains the original and full meaning of this term "catholic" as used by St. Ignatius in the early 2nd Century. "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." The Church claims that "catholicity" is important, but it is only one of the four essential marks by which the Church is identified. The Church is identified as "Catholic", because that is what She is. But the Church might also speak of Herself as the "One" Church, the "Holy Church", the "Apostolic" Church, or even the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" Church. I think in great part, it is simply for an economy of words that She became known everywhere as simply the Catholic Church. I believe I should stop there for now, incomplete as this first post certainly is. 3DOP
  16. Navidad, thank you for sincere interest. I appreciate the reasons one in your position might have in asking: "I try, but I can't get my head around how we are not, each of us a part of the great historical and present-existing Christian community world-wide?" This is the main question I will try to address in the next few hours when we try to feel the desolation of our Lord's absence for our salvation. Ah...the greatest of Sundays is coming! The Sunday which is symbolized in every other! We know it. And it can't but erupt sometimes in anticipated joy even as we finish the last weary, mournful hours. Anyway, A blessed Good Friday to you and all, as I try to gradually address your questions today and tomorrow without excessive reference to my own inevitable thoughts about the days that are now upon us. 3DOP
  17. It is late on Sunday night, and this old man has a 50 hour work week ahead...no wait...praise God...we have off Good Friday with pay! May we continue our discussion later? I have some thoughts. God bless. 3DOP
  18. Well said Scott. Not that I can adhere to it now as a Catholic, but I very much appreciate it at as one who was formerly trying to believe that the Catholic Church had become corrupted, and could be replaced without a thorough and authoritative restoration. This is what I was referring to when I said to Navidad above about how LDS studies moved me away from any kind of unrestored, non-Catholic Christianity: "LDS claims against any non-Catholic institution, combined with the desire to see a plausible fulfillment of Christ's prayer for visible unity among all of His disciples, helped my journey Romeward." This is why for the entire time I have been here, since 2004, the first question of import to me has been that of "a falling away, or general apostasy". It seems hard to break away from Rome, and an established episcopate in an unbroken chain from the Apostles, to anybody less than Joseph Smith who not surprisingly, rejects the teachings of the Council of Nicea, with its 300 plus Catholic bishops, and proposes ideas that are radically different from what "apostate Christianity" taught. Protestantism is still too Roman! It breaks away, but keeps too much. For me, it became either Rome, or Restoration. I also visited Islam as having Restorationist claims. Ultimately, I lean on the authority of the Levitical priests in our Lord's public life, who despite all the degradation and depravity described by the Prophets through the centuries after Moses, retained their priestly authority even as the high priest who sat on the "chair of Moses", whose authority our Lord Jesus recognized, sought to destroy the Son of God. There are a lot of "unauthorized doctrines and practices" in the Old Testament that never resulted in the loss of priestly authority. Without both Testaments, which seem to highlight the very worst of the behaviors and beliefs prevalent among the priests of the children of promise, while still retaining God's authority, I might be more susceptible to claims of apostasy in the early years of the New Testament Church. Plato seems way too mild to me in comparison. With respect, 3DOP
  19. Navidad, good to hear back from you. I appreciate your gentle reply and your probing question. I hope I can clarify. Occasionally, I refer to a separated (non-Catholic) brother or sister in Christ as a "good Catholic". I also believe in "the ekklesia - the called out ones who honor His name regardless of specific institutional affiliation". I certainly believe that there are many who do not identify themselves as Catholic who may be saved. Yet, they will be saved because they were "Catholic". The name of this ekklesia is the Catholic Church. The marks of Christ's church are identifiable and verifiable. It is One (not plural), Holy (sanctifies those who faithfully practice her teachings), Apostolic (can plausibly claim to have ministers who have been ordained by ministers who extend back to the very Apostles), and Catholic (universal). There is no salvation outside this Church. However, and this is important, If any of my non-Catholic Christian friends or family die, unaffiliated visibly with the Catholic Church, I may still hope that they were "good Catholics" unknowingly, through no fault of their own, invisibly attached to the Catholic Church. I also read your latest "wordy" post with interest. I understand the frustration of feeling a lack of respect, or "rankism" as I think you called it from LDS, who will baptize you in the afterlife, or Catholics who might hope for your salvation, not as a Mennonite, but as an "invisible Catholic". I earnestly hope and pray that I do not hold myself to be superior, because in His mercy, I believe God has shown me the truth of the Catholic faith. To think that way would be to seriously overestimate one's position before God as a Catholic. God have mercy, and preserve us from such folly. Obviously, the Catholics that are visibly affiliated with the Church should believe that our good and loving Father operates outside the Sacraments to bring those into the fold who love Him, and His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. However, it would be to seriously underestimate the privilege which God has given to visible Catholics, of having access to the life-giving Sacraments of the visible Church, to think it is a matter of irrelevance which community of Christians to which one belongs. It is impossible not to have more hope for the salvation of those attached to the visible Church, than to those who are not for the time being. Likewise, it is impossible not to have more hope for those who happily profess to be Christians, than for those in the world who do not. But even for those who do not name Christ, we may hope that by "the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world", that all people of good will, by whatever light they have received, may be unknowingly Christian, and unknowingly Catholic. All men are our neighbors, and we must treat all of them with the same love and mercy which we have received, even those who seem for now to be our enemies, as potential members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. We will all recall how Jesus promised that where two or more are gathered His name, there He is in the midst of them. If because of Jesus, we love our neighbor better, it is Him doing the work. It is not us. It is Him. This is part of the mystery of how Christ is really present among any two who are gathered "in His name". As a visible Catholic, I think that this experience happens outside the visible Catholic Church. It gives one joy, but it also gives pain because we are divided. Love always seeks unity with the beloved. Our Saviour prayed on the night before He suffered, that we who believe on Him would be one, even as He and the Father are One. Visible Catholics have differences of opinion about the best policy for trying to help all Christians worship together. If by word or action, visible Catholics alienate any fellow Christian, I am very sorry. But there are many reasons why for instance, I hold that visible Catholics should not worship jointly in hybrid ceremonies which place Catholic liturgy on an equal footing with non-Catholic worship. I am aware of course, that in recent years this is precisely what many in the Church hierarchy have been doing, even though it has been explicitly condemned by popes of the past. In my opinion, this is not the best policy "for trying to help all Christians worship together". I think that while apparently showing respect, to Lutherans, Anglicans, and others with whom we have shared joint worship, it "alienates" members of these groups in the strict sense of the word. I fear that it pushes them farther away from seeing any need to become visibly Catholic. But I trust that those who do support "joint worship" have the same motive as I do, when I transparently admit that it is better to be visibly Catholic than not. Assuredly, all the saved will be in eternity intimately one, as are Christ and the Father in heaven. But we do what we can to see that Christ's prayer, which will certainly be answered, is fulfilled more and more on earth, as it is in heaven. It seems to me like you are satisfied with the way you believe that God has distributed His gifts and has organized His people. I would not be surprised to discover that you are what I have labelled for the sake of this thread an "invisible Catholic" and love God and your neighbor better than many visible Catholics. But the big difference between us might be that visible Catholics should never be satisfied with mere invisible Catholicism. We cannot abandon the desire for a truly visible unity, "the city on a mountain that cannot be hid", more easily identifiable to souls in search of Christ's rest. Visible Catholics should sense a duty to try as best we can to lovingly lead our very near neighbors, the invisible Catholics, to their true and visible family, the Catholic Church, for the glory of God, the good of their souls, and for the salvation of all. Simply put, I think Christ's prayer in John 17 implies at minimum, that we all should go to the same church together, with an holy intimacy that transcends distance and time, with what the Catholic Church calls, "the communion of saints". I began a quest for visible unity before I became visibly Catholic. The church which I pastored reached out to other churches in our area in an attempt to promote joint activity. I was part of one church merger. I still think about that with satisfaction. But ultimately, I came to the place where I could not imagine many communities of believers where visible unity is, or could be a reality, on a worldwide, universal basis. One was the Catholic Church. Another was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no small part, this is what led me to study those two religious institutions and to finally unite myself visibly with the Catholic Church. LDS claims against any non-Catholic institution, combined with the desire to see a plausible fulfillment of Christ's prayer for visible unity among all of His disciples, helped my journey Romeward. With wordy regards, your friend in Christ, Rory
  20. Navidad, hi. I think that the main thing you don't like about CoJCoLDS, might be the main thing I do like! I think that is why we have clashed a bit previously. I hope we understand each other better. I do not now say that love for Jesus outside of a perceived true church is without great value. But I still believe in a one true church. Blessings to you. Rory
  21. I didn't mean to say that you were promoting Catholicism. I just meant that you seemed to be trying to be fair about a particular part of a bigger picture.
  22. Hey Mark! Thanks for your help in supporting my position. Thanks for your kind words and well wishes. We're doing very okay out here in middle America. Your friend in Jesus and Mary, 3DOP
  • Create New...